Division   7jS15|5 
VvZ. 


Section 


THE 


PROPHECIES 


ISAIAH,    i 


TRANSLATED  AND  EXPLAINED. 


JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDER,  D.  D., 

PROFESSOR   IN   THE   THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,    PRINCETON,    NEW   JER8ET. 


VOLUME    XL 


NEW  YORK: 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER  &  CO.,  124  GRAND  STREET. 

1865. 


J  tii.r.-  1  i.»  IT. 1111^  to  Act  of  r«n»TC^'vln  tlie  je«r  IS&V 

Bt  CHARLES  SCBIBXKi:  A  CO.. 

In  th««  Cl«fk>  Ofllw  of  Iho  District  Omrt  for  the  Soathern  DUtrict  <>f  N.>«  Y.rk 


COMMENTARY. 


CHAPTER   XXXII. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  distinguishable  parts.  The  first  continues 
the  promises  of  the  foregoing  context,  vers.  1-8.  The  second  predicts  in- 
tervening judgments  both  to  Israel  and  his  enemies,  vers.  9—20. 

The  first  blessing  promised  in  the  former  part  is  that  of  merciful  and 
righteous  government,  vers.  1,  2.  The  next  is  that  of  spiritual  illumina- 
tion, vers.  3,  4.  As  the  consequence  of  this,  moral  distinctions  shall  no 
longer  be  confounded,  men  shall  be  estimated  at  their  real  value  ;  a  general 
prediction,  which  is  here  appHed  to  two  specific  cases,  vers.  5-8. 

The  threatenings  of  the  second  part  are  specially  addressed  to  the  women 
of  Judah,  ver.  9,  They  include  the  desolation  of  the  country  and  the 
downfall  of  Jerusalem,  vers.  10-14.  The  evils  are  to  last  until  a  total 
change  is  wrought  by  an  eflusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  vers,  15—18.  But 
fearful  changes  are  to  intervene,  for  which  believers  must  prepare  them- 
selves by  diligence  in  present  duty,  vers.  19,  20. 

1.  Behold,  for  righteousness  shall  reign  a  king,  and  rulers  for  justice  shall 
rule.  The  usual  translation  is  injustice  and  in  righteousness,  as  descriptive 
epithets  of  the  reign  foretold.  But  as  this  idea  is  commonly  expressed  by 
the  preposition  3,  the  use  of  7  here  may  have  been  intended  to  suggest, 
that  he  would  reign  not  only  justh-,  but  for  the  very  purpose  of  doing  justice. 
The  Hebrew  particle  denotes  relation  in  its  widest  sense,  but  is  most  fre- 
quenth'  equivalent  to  our  to  and /or.  Th^  cognate  noun  and  verb  (rule  and 
rulers)  are  combined  as  in  the  original.  The  /  before  C'TC  is  commonly 
agreed  to  mean  as  to,  as  for.  It  is  a  question  among  interpreters  whether 
the  king  here  predicted  is  Hezekiah  or  the  Messiah.  The  truth  appears  to 
be  that  the  promise  is  a  general  one,  as  if  he  had  said.  The  day  is  coming 
when  power  shall  be  exercised  and  government  administered,  not  as  at  pre- 
sent (in  the  reign  of  Ahaz),  but  with  a  view  to  the  faithful  execution  of  the 
laws.  Of  such  an  improvement  Hezekiah's  reign  was  at  least  a  beginning 
and  a  foretaste.  The  reference  of  0^"C'  to  the  apostles  appears  very  forced, 
and  is  certainly  not  justified,  much  less  required,  by  the  promise  in  Mat. 
xix.  28. 

2.  Aud  a  man  shall  le  as  a  hiding-place  from  the  tcind,  and  a  covert  from 
the  rain  (or  storm),  as  channels  of  water  in  a  dry  place  (or  in  drought),  as 
the  shadow  of  a  heavy  rock  in  a  weary  land.  Most  of  the  late  interpreters 
give  t^'N  the  sense  of  a  distributive  pronoun,  each  {i.  e.  each  of  the  chiefs 

VOL.  II.  A 


2  IS  ALU!  XXXII.  [Ver.  3-5. 

or  princes  mentioned  in  ver.  1)  shall  he,  &c.  But  the  word  is  seldom  if 
ever  so  used  except  when  connected  with  a  plural  verh,  as  in  chaps,  is.  19, 
20 ;  xiii.  8,  14  ;  xiv.  18 ;  xix.  2 ;  xxxi.  7.  The  meaning  nither  is,  that  there 
shall  he  a  man  upon  the  throne,  or  at  the  head  of  the  government,  who, 
instead  of  oppressing,  will  prott;ct  the  helpless.  This  may  either  he  inde- 
finitely undwstood,  or  applied,  in  an  individual  and  emphatic  sense,  to 
the  Messiah.  The  figures  f(jr  jjrotection  and  relief  are  the  same  used  above 
in  chap.  iv.  0,  and  xxv.  1.  Tlie  phrases  heavy  rock,  aud  weary  land,  are 
idiomatic,  hut  require  no  explanation. 

8.  And  the  eyes  of  (hem  (hat  nee  shall  not  be  dim,  and  the  ears  of  them  that 
hear  .sh(dl  hearken.  According  to  analogA',  nrj?t?'ri  is  the  future  of  n;^'^,  a 
verh  used  repeatedly  hy  Isaiah  in  the  sense  of  luokinti  either  at  or  away 
from  any  object.  (See,  for  example,  chap.  xvii.  7,  8;  xxii.  4,  xxxi.  1.) 
In  this  case,  however,  a  contrary  meaning  seems  to  be  so  clearly  required, 
both  hy  the  context  and  the  parallelism,  that  most  interpreters,  ancient  and 
modern,  concur  in  deriving  it  from  WV,  or  in  supposing  nj;^'  to  have  been 
sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of  blinding,  which  the  former  verb  has  in  chap, 
vi.  10,  and  xxix.  9.  Some  understand  D*Nn  as  meaning  seers  or  prophets, 
and  D'yrpL"  their  hearers;  hut  most  interpreters  apply  both  words  to  the 
people  generally,  as  those  who  had  eyes  but  saw  not,  aud  had  ears  but 
heard  not.  Compare  the  threatening  in  chap.  vi.  9,  and  the  promise  ia 
chap.  xxix.  18. 

And  the  heart  (or  mind)  dJ  the  ;a«/t  (heedless  or  reckless)  s/irt//  understand 
to  know  (or  understand  knouledtje),  and  the  tonr/ue  <>/  stammerers  shall  hasten 
to  speak  clear  things  (i.  e.  shall  speak  readily  and  plainly).  Some  inter- 
preters suppose  that  this  last  metaphor  relates  to  scoflers  at  religion,  who 
are  elsewhere  represented  as  stammering  in  derision  of  the  Prophet's  admoni- 
tions (chap,  xxviii.  11).  But  it  seems  more  natural  to  understand  the 
bodily  defects  here  mentioned  as  denoting  others  of  an  intellectual  and 
spiritual  nature,  neglect  and  ignorance  of  spiritual  matters.  The  minds  of 
men  shall  begin  to  be  directed  to  religious  truth,  and  delivered  from  igno- 
rance and  error  in  relation  to  it. 

5.  When  men's  eyes  are  thus  opened,  they  will  no  longer  confound  the 
essential  distinctions  of  moral  character,  because  they  will  no  longer  he 
deceived  hy  mere  appearances.  Things  will  then  be  called  hy  their  right 
names.  The  J'oul  (in  the  emphatic  Scriptural  sense,  the  wicked  man)  uill 
no  lonijer  be  called  noble  (men  will  no  longer  attach  ideas  of  dignity  aud 
greatness  to  the  name  or  person  of  presumptuous  sinners),  and  the  churl  (or 
niggard)  hi7/  no  more  be  spoken  of  (or  tu)  as  liberal.     The  sense  here  given 

to  v'3  rests  wholly  on  the  Jewish  tradition,  as  the  word  occurs  nowhere 
else  in  Scripture.  Gesenius  derives  it  by  apharesis  from  7?p,  and  explains 
it  to  mean  cunnin/j.  The  sense  will  then  be,  that  a  crafty  pohcy  shall  no 
longer  gain  for  him  who  practises  it  the  reputation  of  magnanimous  liberality. 
Hitzig  derives  the  word  from  ^73,  to  consume,  and  explains  the  clause  as 
meaning  that  the  waster  (prodigal  or  si)fndthrifl)  shall  no  longer  be  called 
generous.  This  last  agrees  best  with  the  parallel  clause,  in  which  the  out- 
ward show  of  a  good  (juality  is  distinguished  from  its  actual  possession. 
But  both  these  versions  rest  upon  dubious  etymohtgies.  On  either  supposi- 
tion, it  is  clear  that  this  clause,  like  the  other,  contains  a  specific  illustra- 
tion of  the  general  tnith  that  men  shall  bo  estimated  at  their  real  value. 

Ewald  translates  ?^}  aud  v'9  Tawjenichls  (good-for-nothing)  and  Windbeutel 
(bag-of-wind). 


Ver.  6-11.  j  ISAIAH  XXXII.  3 

6.  The  Prophet  now  defines  his  own  expressions,  or  describes  the  cha- 
racters which  they  denote.  The  fool  (in  one  ivho)  iciU  speak  folhj  (in  the 
strongest  and  worse  sense),  and  his  heart  luill  do  iniqnitij,  to  do  n-ickedness 
and  to  speak  error  unto  (or  ar/ainst)  Jehovah  (while  at  the  same  time  ho  is 
merciless  and  cruel  towards  his  fellow-men),  to  staive  (or  leave  empty)  the 
soul  of  the  huufjry,  and  the  drink  of  the  thirsty  he  will  suffer  to  fail.  The 
futures  in  this  verse  express  the  idea  of  habitual  action,  he  does,  and  will 
do  so.  The  infinitives  convey  the  same  idea  in  a  different  form,  by  making 
prominent  the  design  and  effect  of  their  unlawful  course.  The  common 
version,  uork  and  practise,  needlessly  departs  from  the  form  of  the  original, 
in  which  the  same  verb  is  repeated.  To  give  it  first  the  sense  of  devising, 
and  then  that  of  executiny,  is  still  more  arbitrary,  ^^n,  according  to  the 
older  \vi-iters,  means  hypocrisy ;  according  to  the  moderns,  wickedness  in 
general,  but  in  a  high  degree. 

7.  Such  is  the  fool :  and  as  for  the  churl,  although  his  making  money  be  not 
sinful  in  itself,  his  arms  or  instruments,  the  means  which  he  employs,  are 
evil.  He  that  hastens  to  be  rich  can  scarcely  avoid  the  practice  of  dishonest 
arts  and  of  unkind ness  to  the  poor.  He  deviseth  plots  to  destroy  the  op- 
■pressed  (or  afflicted)  with  words  of  falsehood,  and  {i.e.  even)  in  the  poor 
[mcin's)  speakiny  riyht  (i.  e.  even  when  the  poor  man's  claim  is  just,  or  in  a 
more  general  sense,  when  the  poor  man  pleads  his  cause).  The  variation  in 
the  form  of  the  word  v^3  (»'?3)  is,  with  great  probability,  supposed  by 
Geseuius  to  have  been  intended  to  assimilate  the  f(n-m  to  Iv?, 

8.  As  the  wicked  man's  true  character  is  betrayed  by  bis  habitual  acts, 
so  the  noble  or  yenerous  man  (and  according  to  the  Scriptures  none  is  such 
but  the  truly  good  man)  reveals  his  dispositions  by  his  conduct — devises 
noble  (or  yenerous)  things,  and  in  noble  {ov  generous)  things  he  perseveres 
(literally,  on  them  he  stands). 

9.  Here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  Prophet  reverts  to  the  prospect  of 
approaching  danger,  which  was  to  arouse  the  careless  Jews  from  their 
security.  As  in  chap.  iii.  16,  he  addresses  himself  to  the  women  of  Jeru- 
salem, because  to  them  an  invasion  would  be  peculiarly  disastrous,  and  also 
perhaps  because  their  luxm-ious  habits  contributed,  more  or  less  directly,  to 
existing  evils.  Careless  women,  arise,  hear  my  voice  ;  confiding  daughters, 
give  ear  unto  my  speech.  Women  and  daughters  are  equivalent  expressions. 
Careless  and  confiding  (or  secure),  i.  e.  indifferent,  because  not  apprehensive 
of  the  coming  danger. 

10.  Having  called  their  attention  in  ver.  9,  he  now  proceeds  with  the 
prediction  which  concerned  them.  In  a  year  and  more  (literally,  days 
above  a  year),  ye  shall  tremble,  ye  confiding  ones,  for  the  vintage  fails,  the 
gathering  shall  not  come.  The  English  Version  makes  the  time  denoted  to 
be  that  of  the  duration  of  the  threatened  evil,  njc^  bv.  D^DJ  is  by  some  ex- 
plained to  mean,  during  the  remainder  of  the  year  ;  but  the  version  above 
given  agrees  best  with  the  form  of  the  original. 

11.  He  now  speaks  as  if  the  event  had  already  taken  place,  and  calls 
upon  them  to  express  their  sorrow  and  alarm  by  the  usual  signs  of  mourn- 
ing. Tremble,  ye  careless  (wo7neu) ;  quake,  ye  confiding  {ones) ;  strip  you  and 
make  you  bare,  and  gird  (sackcloth)  on  your  loins.  A  remarkable  anomaly 
in  this  verse  is  the  masculine  form  of  the  first  imperative  and  the  singular 
form  of  the  others.  Ewald  explains  the  latter  as  contractions  for  i^^l^T!, 
1^}]V},  but  admits  that  there  are  no  analogous  forms  elsewhere.  Knobel 
thinks  it  possible  that  the  forms  are  infinitives  with  local  or  directive  ^  {to 


4  IS.ILIII  XXXn.  [Yeb.  12-15. 

tremhling,  sti  ippinf/,  girding  !)  Imt  this  is  equally  without  oxnir.plo.  Gost  niup, 
Hitzif.',  and  others,  make  thtin  paregoric  forius,  in  which  case  both  tlie 
gender  and  number  are  nnumalous. 

12.  Mourning  Jut  the  brmsta  (or  benling  (m,  (he  hreiisls  as  a  sign  of  mourn- 
ing),  for  tJte phaaant  Jields,  for  the  ftuiijul  vine.  The  older  writers  explair.ed 
brta-sls  as  a  figure  for  productive  grounds,  or  sources  of  supply.  Lowth 
connects  it  with  ver.  11  {mi  gunr  luins,  on  your  breasts).  Gesenius  in  his 
Commentary  reads  0'''}\l\/iibls  ;  but  in  his  Lexicon,  he  follows  Puulus  and 
the  ancient  versions  in  giving  2'"'?D  its  priniar}-  sense  of  striking,  especially 
upon  the  breast  in  sign  of  mourning.  The  same  act  is  described  in  Nahum 
ii.  8,  but  by  a  dillercnt  verb.  This  explanation  is  also  given  by  Maurer, 
Henderson,  Ewald,  I'mbreit,  and  Kiiobel.  It  is  favoured  by  the  striking 
analogy  of  xirrTui  and  jdangn  (the  words  used  by  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate 
here),  both  which  have  precisely  the  i-anie  jirimarv  and  secondary  meaning. 
The  olher  explanation,  which  is  still  retained  by  Hitzig,  Htiidewerk,  and 
Barnes,  is  recommended  by  the  usage  of  ^?D,  and  by  the  fact  that  ^J?  is 
twice  used  afterwards  in  this  same  sentence,  to  denote  the  suliject  or  occasion 
of  the  sorrow.  The  argument  foun-led  on  the  masculine  form  D*"I9D  has 
less  weight  on  account  of  the  anomalies  in  ver.  11,  and  the  remoteness  of 
the  feminine  antecedent. 

13.  Upon  the  land  of  my  people  thorn  (and)  thistle  shall  cume  up,  for 
(they  shall  even  come  up)  ui>on  all  {thy)  hottses  of  pleasure,  0  joyoua 
city  !  or,  \tjy>n  all  houses  of  jdensure  {in)  the  joyous  city.  The  true  sense 
of  the  *?  seems  to  be  that  expressed  above  in  the  translation.  Most  inter- 
preters, however,  employ  gm  as  an  equivalent.  According  to  Hendewerk, 
this  i)redicts  only  a  partial  and  temporary  disohition,  and  Knobel  applies 
it  to  the  pleasure-grounds  and  houses  without  the  walls,  which  is  a  mere 
gratuitous  assumption. 

14.  For  the  palace  is/orsaJceyi,  the  crorvd  of  the  city  (or  thf  crowded  city) 
lift,  hill  and  watch-tower  (are)  for  caves  (or  detis)  for  ever,  a  joy  (or 
favourite  resort)  of  wild  aises,  a  pasture  of  flocks.  The  use  of  the  word 
palace,  and  that  in  the  singular  number,  clearly  shews  that  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  itself  is  here  predicted,  although  Knobel  still  maintains  that 
palace  means  country-housi^s.  The  next  clause  likewise  contains  a  refuta- 
tion of  his  hypothesis.  7??y  originally  me.Tns  a  hill,  but  is  applied  as  a 
proper  name  (Ophel)  to  the  southern  extremity  of  mount  Moriah,  overhang- 
ing the  spot  where  the  valleys  of  Jehosbaphat  and  Hinnom  meet.  "  The 
top  of  the  ridge  is  flat,  descending  rapidly  towards  the  south,  sometimes  by 
oflsets  of  rock  ;  the  ground  is  tilled  and  planted  with  olive  and  other  fruit- 
trees  "  (llobinsons  Palestine,  i.  p.  H91).  Most  writers  seem  to  make  1^3 
here  mean  instead  of,  which  is  at  best  a  rare  and  doubtful  sen.se.  In  the 
last  edition  of  Robinson's  Gesenius,  this  explanation  is  reUnquishcd  and  a 
local  meaning  given  to  the  word,  amid  caverns,  i.  c.  surrounded  I y  them. 
lUit  this  reverses  the  true  meaning  of  the  preposition,  about,  round  about. 
If  strictly  understood,  it  would  rather  seem  to  mean  that  the  hill  and  tower 
should  enclose  caves  or  dens  within  their  limits.  Hendewtrk,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  conclusion  that  an  actual  destruction  of  the  city  is  foretold,  explains 
the  verse  as  meaning  tbat  the  people  should  shut  themselves  and  their  cattle 
np  within  the  walls,  .so  that  the  interior  of  the  city,  for  a  time,  would  be 
changed  into  a  pasture-ground. 

15.  The  desolation  having  been  described  in  ver.  14  as  of  indefinite 
duration,  this  verse  states  more  explicitly  how  long  it  is  to  last.  I'ndl  Ote 
Spit  it  is  poured  out  upon  us  from  on  high,  and  the  icildemest  lecomea  a 


Ver.  lG-19.]  ISAIAH  JiXXII.  5 

fruitful  field,  and  the  fruitful  field  is  reckoned  to  the  forest.  The  general 
meaning  evidently  is,  until  by  a  special  divine  influence  a  total  revolution 
shall  take  place  in  the  character,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence  in  the 
condition,  of  the  people.  The  attempt  to  restrict  it  to  the  return  from 
exile,  or  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  some  great  eff'usion  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
Jews  still  future,  perverts  the  passage  by  making  that  its  whole  meaning 
which  at  most  is  but  a  part.  For  the  meaning  of  the  figures,  sec  the  ex- 
position of  chap.  xxix.  17.  In  this  connection  they  would  seem  to  denote 
nothing  more  than  total  change,  whereas  in  the  other  case  the  idea  of  an 
interchange  appears  to  be  made  prominent. 

16.  And  justice  sludl  abide  in  the  icilderncsx,  and  rii/htcomness  in  the 
fruitful  field  shall  dwell.  This  may  either  mean,  that  what  is  now  a  wilder- 
ness and  what  is  now  a  fruitful  field,  shall  alike  be  the  abode  of  right- 
eousness, i.  e.  of  righteous  men  ;  or  that  both  in  the  cultivation  of  the 
dosert  and  in  the  desolation  of  the  field,  the  righteousness  of  God  shall  be 
displayed.  In  favour  of  the  former  is  the  use  of  the  word  dwell,  which 
implies  a  permanent  condition,  rather  than  a  transient  or  occasional  mani- 
festation. It  also  agrees  better  with  the  relation  of  this  verse  to  that 
before  it,  as  a  part  of  the  same  sentence.  If  this  be  the  meaning  of  the 
sixteenth  verse,  it  seems  to  follow  clearly,  that  the  whole  of  the  last  clause 
of  the  fifteenth  is  a  promise,  since  the  same  inhabitation  of  righteousness 
is  here  foretold  in  reference  to  the  forest  and  the  fruitful  field.  It  is  pos- 
sible indeed  that  these  may  be  put  for  the  whole  land,  as  being  the  two 
parts  into  which  he  had  just  before  di^•ided  it. 

17.  As  the  foregoing  verse  describes  the  efiect  of  the  eflusion  of  the 
Spu-it  to  be  universal  righteousness,  so  this  describes  the  natural  and  neces- 
sary consequence  of  righteousness  itself.  ^  J ;(fZ  the  irork  of  rujhtcousness 
shall  be  peace,  and  the  effect  of  rvjhieousness  rest  and  assurance  (or  security) 

for  ever.  Both  HLJ'yo  and  ninj?  strictly  denote  ioork,  or  rather  that  which 
is  wrought,  the  product  of  labour.  The  translation  of  the  former  hy  fruit 
introduces  a  figure  not  in  the  original,  as  HEi'VO  is  never  so  employed, 
although  the  verbal  root  is  used  to  denote  the  generation  of  plants.  The 
phrase  D?iy""iy,  not  being  limited  in  this  case  as  it  is  in  vers.  14,  15,  must 
be  taken  in  its  widest  sense. 

18.  And  my  people  shall  abide  in  a  home  of  peace,  in  sure  dwellings,  and 
in  quiet  resting-places.  There  is  something  tranquillizing  in  the  very  sound 
of  this  delightful  promise,  which,  as  usual,  is  hmitcd  to  God's  own  people, 
implying  either  that  all  should  have  become  such,  or  that  those  who  had 
not  should  be  still  perturbed  and  restless. 

19.  And  it  shall  hail  in  the  doronfall  of  the  forest  (i.  e.  so  as  to  overthrow 
it),  and  the  city  shall  be  low  in  a  low  place  (or  humbled  ivith  humiliation),  i.  e. 
utterly  brought  down.  If  this  be  read  as  a  direct  continuation  of  the  pro- 
mise in  verse  18,  it  must  be  explained  as  a  description  of  the  downfall  of 
some  hostile  power,  and  accordingly  it  has  been  referred  by  most  interpre- 
ters to  Nineveh,  by  Knobcl  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  and  by 
Henderson  to  the  destruction  of  the  Je^\^sh  polity  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  dispensation.  Others,  thinking  it  more  natural  to  assume  one 
subject  here  and  in  ver.  13,  regard  this  as  another  instance  of  prophetic 
recun-ence  from  remoter  promises  to  nearer  threats ;  as  if  he  had  said, 
IJefore  these  things  can  come  to  pass,  the  city  must  be  brought  low.  This 
construction  is  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  Prophet's  manner,  as  exempli- 
fied already  in  this  very  chapter.  (See  note  on  ver.  9  above).  Most 
interpreters,  however,  seem  to  fall  into  the  usual  error  of  regarding  as 


6  ISA  Li  1 1  AAA///.  [Veb.  1. 

specific  aud  exclusive  what  the  Propliet  himself  Las  left  uulimited  and 
undefined.  However  natural  and  probable  certain  applications  of  the  pas- 
sage may  appear,  the  only  sense  which  can  with  certainty  be  put  upon  it, 
is  that  some  existing  power  must  be  humbled,  either  as  a  means  or  as  a 
consequence  of  the  moral  revolution  which  had  been  predicted.  Knobel 
applies  the  first  clause  to  the  slaughter  of  Sc-nnacherib's  army,  and  the 
second  to  the  spiritual  humiliation  of  the  Jews,  which  is  very  unnatural. 
The  recent  writers  find  a  paronomasia  in  the  phrase  r\l'\2  T13,  which 
Ewald  imitates  Ijy  combining  the  words  hageln  and  verhagell. 

20.  Bhsscd  are  ye  that  sow  beside  all  -waters^  that  send  forth  the  foot  of 
the  ox  and  the  ass.  The  allusion  in  this  verse  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  to 
pastunige,  by  others  to  tillage.  Lowth  follows  Chardin  in  applying  the 
words  to  the  practice  of  treading  the  ground  by  the  feet  of  cattle  before 
planting  rice ;  Henderson  to  the  act  of  setting  them  at  liberty  from  the 
rope  with  which  they  were  tied  by  the  foot.  There  is  still  more  diversity 
of  judgment  with  respect  to  the  apjilication  of  the  metaphor.  Of  the  latest 
^Titers  who  have  been  consulted,  Knobel  understands  the  verso  ns  con- 
trasting the  condition  of  those  who  lived  at  liberty  on  the  sea-side  or  by 
rivers,  with  theirs  who  were  pent  up  and  besieged  in  cities.  Hitz'g  sup- 
poses a  particular  allusion  to  the  case  of  those  who  had  escaped  with  their 
possessions  from  Jerusalem.  Hendewerk  applies  the  verse  to  the  happy 
external  condition  of  the  people  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.  Henderson 
says  it  beautifully  exliibits  the  free  and  unrestrained  exertions  of  the 
apostles  and  other  missionaries  in  sowing  the  seed  of  the  kingdom  in  every 
part  of  the  world.  Ewald  explains  it  exclusively  of  moral  cultivation,  as 
implying  that  none  can  expect  to  reap  good  without  diligently  sowing  it. 
Of  nil  these  explanations  the  last  may  be  considered  as  approaching  nearest 
to  the  truth,  because  it  requires  least  to  be  supplied  by  the  imagination. 
Taking  the  whole  connection  into  view,  the  meaning  of  this  last  verse 
seems  to  be,  that  as  great  revolutions  are  to  be  expected,  arising  wholly  or 
in  part  from  moral  causes,  Ihey  alone  are  safe,  for  the  present  and  the 
future,  who  with  patient  assiduity  perform  what  is  required  ;  and  provide, 
by  the  discharge  of  actual  duty  for  contingencies  which  can  neither  be 
escaped,  nor  provided  for  in  any  other  manner. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

Tnis  chapter  contains  a  general  threatening  of  retribution  to  the  enemies 
of  God's  people,  with  particular  reference  to  Sennacherib  or  the  Assvrian 
power.  The  spoiler  shall  himself  be  spoiled  in  due  time,  through  the 
divine  inter))osition,  and  for  the  exaltation  of  Jehovah,  vers.  1-G.  The 
state  of  desolation  and  alarm  is  followed  by  sudden  deliverance,  vers.  7-18. 
The  same  vicissitudes  are  again  described,  but  in  another  form,  vers. 
14-19.  The  peace  and  BOcurity  of  Zioii  arc  set  forth  under  the  figures  of 
a  stationary  Unl,  and  of  a  spot  surrounded  by  broad  rivers,  yet  impassiiblc 
to  hostile  vessels,  vers.  20-22.  l\y  a  beautiful  tnmsition,  the  enemy  is 
described  as  such  a  vessel,  but  dismantled  and  abandoned  to  its  enemies, 
ver.  28.  The  chapter  cidses  with  a  general  promise  of  deliverance  from 
BafTcriug,  as  a  consequence  of  pardoned  sin,  ver.  24. 

1.  H  ue  to  thee  spmiivg  aud  thini  vast  nut  fpniUd,  deceirivg  and  they  did 
not  deciiw  thee  I  When  than  shall  erase  to  spoil  thou  shalt  be  ffoilrd,  and 
vhen  thtiu  art  dune  deceiving  they  shall  deceive  thee.     The   plural  verbs  in 


Ver.  2-4.J  ISAIAH  XXXIII.  7 

both  clauses  arc  indefinitely  construed  as  equivalents  to  the  passive  parti- 
ciples. The  two  ideas  meant  to  be  expressed  are  those  of  violence  and 
treachery',  as  the  crying  sins  of  arbitrary  powers.  The  latest  German 
wi-iters  suppose  both  the  verbs  to  be  expressive  of  robbery  or  spoliation, 
but  without  authority  from  usage.  (See  the  note  on  chap.  xxi.  2.)  The 
person  addressed  has  been  supposed  by  different  writers  to  be  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, Antiochus  Epiphanes  (Vitringa),  Ferdinand  II.  (Cocceius),  Anti- 
christ (Gill),  and  Satan  (Jerome).  Most  interpreters  suppose  it  to  be  Sen- 
nacherib, either  as  an  individual  or  as  a  representative  of  the  Assyrian 
power.  In  themselves,  the  words  are  applicable  to  any  oppressive  and 
deceitful  enemy,  and  may  be  naturally  so  explained  at  the  beginning  of  the 
prophecy.  This  verse  describes  the  enemy  as  acting  without  provocation, 
and  also  as  having  never  yet  experienced  reverses. 

2.  Jehovah,  favour  ns;  for  thee  we  wait;  be  their  arm  in  the  moniitif/s, 
aha  our  salcalion  in  time  of  trouble.  Instead  of  their  arm,  Lowth  follows 
several  of  the  ancient  versions  in  reading  our  arm.  The  common  text  has 
been  variously  explained  as  a  prayer  of  the  present  for  the  absent  (Vitringa), 
of  the  Jewish  for  the  Christian  church  (De  Dieu),  of  the  Reformed  Church 
for  its  defenders  (Cocceius),  &c.,  &c.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  as  Barnes 
well  says,  that  Isaiah  here  interposes  his  own  feelings,  and  otfers  his  own 
prayer  that  God  would  be  the  strength  of  the  nation,  and  then,  with  an 
immediate  change  of  form,  presents  the  prayer  of  the  people.  Ann  is  a 
common  Hebrew  metaphor  for  strength  or  support.  (See  chap.  ix.  19.)  As 
to  the  mornings  is  an  indefinite  expression,  understood  by  some  to  mean 
early  or  quickli/,  by  others  every  morninrf  (Kimchi :  "Ip31  "Ip3  ?33),  with 
allusion  to  the  daily  attacks  of  the  enemy  (Henderson),  or  to  the  daily  morn- 
ing sacrifice  (Piscator).  Calvin  explains  the  whole  clause  thus,  Be  thou, 
who  wast  their  arm  {i.e.  that  of  our  fathers)  in  the  morning  {i.e.  of  old), 
also  our  salvation  in  time  of  trouble.  But  this  is  rather  a  Latin  than  a 
Hebrew  construction. 

3.  At  a  noise  oj  tumult  (or  tumultuous  noise)  the  peoples  flee;  at  thy 
rising  the  nations  are  scattered.  The  modern  notion,  that  the  voice  of 
Jehovah  always  means  thunder,  seems  entirely  arbitrary.  The  voice  and 
the  rising  up  are  parts  of  the  same  figure,  and  the  one  has  no  more  refer- 
ence to  actual  phenomena  in  nature  than  the  other.  Aben  Ezra  and  Lowth 
suppose  these  words  to  be  addressed  to  Sennacherib,  all  other  writers  to 
Jehovah  himself.  Jerome  refers  the  first  clause  to  the  voice  of  the  destroy- 
ing angel,  Piscator  to  the  tumult  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians.  Lowth 
reads  thy  terrible  voice,  in  which,  as  he  says,  he  follows  the  Septuagint  and 
Peshito.  The  same  combination  occurs  in  Dan.  x.  C.  (Compare  Rev.  i. 
10,  15.)  The  rising  meant  is  not  the  ascent  of  the  judge  to  the  judgment- 
seat  (Piscator),  nor  the  exaltation  of  the  Assyrian  power  (Aben  Ezra),  but 
the  act  of  rising  from  a  state  of  seeming  inaction,  or  as  when  one  rouses 
himself  to  strike  (Barnes).  These  words  are  commonly  applied  to  the 
divine  interposition  in  the  case  of  Sennacherib's  attack  upon  Jerusalem ; 
but  Ewald  understands  them  more  generally  as  denoting  that  such  had 
ever  been  the  effect  of  Jehovah's  presence,  and  must  be  so  still.  Some 
arbitrarily  translate  the  verse  as  a  direct  prediction  [fugient),  or  a  prayer 
[fugiant). 

4.  And  your  spoil  shall  be  gathered  (like)  the  gathering  of  the  devourer ; 
like  the  running  of  locusts  running  on  it.  By  another  apostrophe,  the 
Prophet  here  addresses  the  enemy  collectively,  /'^on  is  a  name  of  the 
locust,  so  called  from  its  devouring.     (See  the  verb  in  Dcut.  xxviii.  38.) 


8  ISAIAH  XXXIII.  [Veb.  5,  6. 

Henderson  translates  the  parallel  terms,  devourinrf  locust  and  caterpillar- 
licusts.  The  older  writers  understand  this  clause  to  mean  as  locusts  are 
(gathered,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  them,  even  by  children  (Calvin),  or 
l>y  labourers  in  pits  (Jerome),  a  custom  still  existing  in  Africa  and  Spain 
(Forerius).  Junius  explains  it  to  mean  that  tvhich  locusts  have  gathered. 
But  all  the  modern  writors  understand  the  words  to  mean  as  locusts  gather, 
i.e.  greedily  and  thoroughly,  not  leaving  a  tree  or  a  field  till  they  have 
stripped  it  (Boohart).  As  P|DX  is  the  verb  used  to  denote  the  gathering  of 
fruits  in  harvest  (chap.  xvii.  5),  Gesenius  supposes  a  specific  allusion  to 
that  usage  here,  ///.>■  the  harvestimj  of  locusts,  &c.  The  construction  of  the 
last  clause  is:  like  the  running  of  locusts  (shall  one  be)  running  on  it  {i.e. 
on  the  spoil).  The  verb  ?p^  denotes  specifically  the  act  of  runuiufj  ragrrhj, 
or  with  a  view  to  satisfy  the  appetite.  It  is  sometimes  used  to  denote 
desire  itself,  which  Umbreit  assumes  to  be  the  meaning  here  (nach  Ileus- 
chrecken-dier  i/icrt  man  daniach).  Vitringa  finds  the  fulfilment  of  this 
threatening  in  1  Maccab.  iv.  23,  vi.  G.  There  is  an  old  rabbinical  tradition, 
which  so  explains  this  verse  as  to  justify  the  seizure  of  the  spoils  of  the  ten 
tribes  by  the  Jews,  when  found  in  the  possession  of  the  Ass}Tians. 

5.  Exalted  is  Jehovah  because  dwelling  on  high  (or  inhabiting  a  high 
place);  he  Jills  (or  has  filled)  Zion  icith  judgment  and  rightiousness.  The 
first  word  being  a  passive  participle,  seems  to  denote  not  merely  a  con- 
dition, but  a  change,  lie  has  been  craltcil  by  the  subjection  of  his  enemies 
(Knobel),  or  by  his  mighty  deeds  in  general.  The  future  form  adopted  in 
the  French  Version  (va  etre  magnifie)  is  needless  and  arbitrarv-.  There  is 
DO  need  of  making  '3  a  relative  (Vitringa),  or  rendering  it  gea  (Banies),  as 
it  introduces  an  explanation  of  the  statement  in  the  first  clause.  Hugh  jdace 
is  not  put  specifically  for  heaven  (Gesenius),  but  for  a  loft}'  and  command- 
ing position.  The  last  clause  probably  denotes  not  the  moral  eflects  pro- 
duced upon  the  people  (Ewald),  but  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah's  attri- 
butes. According  to  Hendewerk,  this  second  clause  is  the  beginning  of  the 
Messianic  part  of  the  first  of  the  three  prophecies  contained  in  the  chapter. 
Lowth  introduces  here  his  favourite  idea  of  a  chorus  or  choir  of  Jews 
representing  the  whole  people. 

0.  And  he  shall  be  the  security  of  thy  times,  strength  of  salvations,  iri$dom 
and  knowledge,  the  fear  of  Jehovah,  that  is  hit  treasure.  Most  interpreters 
connect  'I'n  either  with  ri31DS  or  pn  as  its  subject :  there  shall  bo  security 
in  thy  times  ;  or  the  security  of  thy  times  shall  be  ;  or  strength  of  salva- 
tions, Sec,  shall  be  the  security  of  thy  times.  But  the  simplest  construction 
is  the  one  proposed  by  Henderson,  which  supplies  the  subject  from  the 
foregoing  verse,  he  [i.e.  Jehovah,  or  it,  i.e.  his  righteousness)  shall  be,  fee. 
The  object  of  address  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  Hezekiah,  by  others  the 
Messiah,  but  is  most  probably  the  people  or  the  believer  as  an  individual. 
His  treasure  may  refer  by  an  enaliage  personae  to  the  same,  or  mean  the 
treasure  of  Jehovah,  that  which  he  bestows.  Hitzig  supposes  an  allusion 
in  the  last  clause  to  Hezekiah's  treasun.',  emptied  by  the  tribute  to  Sen- 
nacherib, as  if  he  had  said.  Henceforth  the  fear  of  the  Lord  shall  be  his 
treasure.  Umlreit  makes  the  first  clause,  by  a  forced  construction,  mean 
that  the  evil  times  should  produce  or  {onlcr  faith,  and  that  this  should  be  a 
treasure  to  the  people.  lOn,  according  to  its  etymology,  means  strength, 
but  in  usage  is  applied  exclusively  to  that  arising  from  wealth.  The  original 
construction  is  perfectly  intelligible,  and  much  more  expressive  than  such 
paraphrastic  versions  as  pov<essio  salutaris  (Clericus).  According  to  Hende- 
werk, this  verse  proves  that  the  only  Messiah  of  whom  Isaiah  ever  pro- 


Ver.  7-9.]  ISAIAH  XXXIII.  9 

phcsies  is  Hezekiali !     Knobel  thinks  that  it  must  be  addressed  to  the 
people,  hecause  Hezekiah  was  a  pious  man  before. 

7.  Behold,  their  valiant  ones  cnj  without  ;  the  ambassadors  of  peace  iveep 
hitterhj.  The  Targum  aud  some  otlicr  ancient  version  seem  to  treat  C?-^'!16? 
as  a  contraction  of  D?  i^^""?  or  9^  '^?'?^-  Thus  Aquila  has  (tsaOr,ao/j,ai 
a'jroTg,  Sjmmachus  opdr]so/ji,rxi,  the  yulgat3  videntes.  But  there  is  no 
example  of  the  form  a?  for  DD7.  (Sjc  the  note  on  chap.  ix.  G.)  E\va!d  reads 
D^7X"pX,  and  explains  it  as  an  adjective  derived  £i-om  Pi^"},  synonymous  with 
the  Arabic  U  to  fear.  They  fearful  cry  aloud.  This  coincides  in  mean- 
ing with  the  Septuagint  Version  {h  r'Z  po/Sw  auriv).  Most  of  the  other 
modern  writers  identify  the  word  substantially  with  Ariel  in  chap.  xxix.  1, 
by  reading  D?.«S")5<  in  the  plural,  or  D?^?1>?  with  a  suffix.  The  latest  investi- 
gations, although  still  unsatisfactory,  tend  strongly  to  confirm  the  version 
given  in  the  English  ]?ible,  (Sec  Gesenius's  Thesaurus  s.  v.)  Some, 
however,  here  as  in  chap.  xxix.  1,  give  Arid  the  sense  of  altar.  Thus 
Grotius  translates  thj  words,  heholi  their  altar,  and  regards  it  as  a  derisive 
exclamation  of  the  enemy,  while  Jarchi  makes  it  a  sorrowful  ejaculation  oi 
the  Jews  themselves.  Abeu  Ezra  and  Kimchi  give  it  the  sense  of  mes- 
senyers,  which  is  plainly  a  conjectural  inference  from  the  parallel  expression. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  characteristically  makes  it  the  name  of  a  species  of  bird, 
and  renders  it  n,ohrdoinmcl.  The  messengers  mentioned  in  the  other 
clause  are  not  those  sent  by  Hezekiah  to  Isaiah  (2  Kings  xix.  2),  nor  the 
Maccabees,  as  being  both  priests  and  heroes  (Vitriuga),  nor  the  ministers 
of  the  gospel,  nor  the  two  apocalyptic' witnesses  (Gill),  but  probably  the 
three  men  sent  by  Hezekiah  to  Rabshakeh  (2  Kings  xviii.  18),  or  perhaps 
the  bearers  of  the  tribute,  weeping  on  account  of  Sennacherib's  refusal  to 
fulfil  his  promise.  Heudewerk  supposes  them  to  be  called  valiant,  because 
they  ventured  into  the  enemy's  camp  ;  others  because  they  were  probably 
military  chiefs.  Their  weeping  is  agreed  by  all  interpreters  to  be  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  ancient  usage,  as  described,  for  example  by  Homer. 
According  to  Cocceius,  the  first  clause  is  an  exclamation  at  the  death  of 
Gustavus  Adolphus. 

8.  The  highioays  are  ivasted,  the  wayfarer  ceaseth  ;  he  breaks  the  covenant, 
despises  cities,  values  no  man.  Those  are  not  the  words  of  the  ambassadors 
reporting  the  condition  of  the  country  (Grotius),  but  of  the  Prophet  him- 
self describing  it.  The  scene  presented  is  not  that  of  Protestant  cities 
seized  by  Antichrist,  and  a  stop  put  to  a  religious  course  and  convcrsaHon 
(Gill),  but  the  actual  conlition  of  Judea  during  the  Assyrian  invasion. 
(Compare  Judges  v.  6.)  The  verbs  of  the  last  clause  are  not  to  be  indefi- 
nitely construed  (Cocceius),  nor  do  they  agree  with  loayfarer,  but  with 
Sennacherib  or  the  Assyrian.  They  arc  not  to  be  rendered  as  pluperfects 
(Junius),  but  as  preterites  or  descriptive  presents.  The  meaning  is  not  that 
he  rejected  the  cities  offered  hiui  by  Hezekiah  (Lowth),  nor  that  he  bar- 
barously disregarded  the  condition  of  the  conquered  country  (J.  I).  Michaelis), 
but  that  he  despised  its  defences  as  unable  to  resist  him.  The  last  words 
may  either  mean  that  he  has  no  regard  to  any  man's  interest  or  wishes,  or 
that  he  does  not  value  human  life.  Some  have  strangely  understood  this 
as  an  impious  reproach  on  God  himself  as  having  broken  his  engagements. 

9.  The  land  mourneth,  linyiiis/ieth  ;  Lebanon  is  ashamed,  it  pines  auay ; 
Sharon  is  like  a  wilderness,  and  Jiashan  and  Carmel  cast  (their  leaves). 
The  most  fertile  and  flom-ishing  parts  of  the  country  are  described  as  deso- 


10  ISAIAH  XXXIJI.  [Vkb.  10-13. 

late.  That  the  language  is  figurative,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
none  of  the  places  mentioned  were  in  Judah.  Hitx.ig  and  llendewerk 
suppose  the  date  of  the  prediction  to  he  fixed  by  the  allusion  to  tlio  falling 
of  the  leaf.  But  would  this  periodical  change  be  represented  as  a  sign  of 
desflalion  ?  According  to  Umbreit,  Lebanon  (the  whiti^  mountain)  is  here 
described  as  blushing,  but  according  to  Ewald  as  turning  pale.  Barnes 
thinks  the  reference  is  to  the  places  through  which  the  Assyrians  had 
passed.  J.  D.  Michaelis  f  illows  up  his  favourite  mode  of  exposition  by 
asserting  that  "^V^  denotes  the  buzzing  of  the  gadfly,  but  is  hero  used  in 
the  sense  oi swarinin/f,  and  applied  to  the  hostile  armies.  Cocceius  takes 
the  same  word  in  the  sense  of  roaring.  According  to  Grotiiis,  the  Sharon 
here  meant  is  the  one  in  Bashan  (1  Chrou.  v.  16).  According  to  Clericus, 
Lebanon  is  put  for  mount  Xiphates,  and  the  other  places  for  places  in 
Assyria. 

10.  Now  will  I  arise,  sailh  Jehovah,  now  will  I  he  lifted  up,  now  will 
I  emit  myself.  The  emphasis  is  not  upon  the  pronoun  (Barnes),  which 
in  that  case  would  have  been  expressed  in  Hebrew,  but  upon  the  adverb 
note,  which  is  twice  repeated  to  imply  that  the  time  for  the  divine  interpo- 
sition is  arrived,  and  that  there  shall  be  no  more  delay.  According  to 
Gesenius.  DOnx  is  for  DOnn^,  hut  others  read  DpniSl. 

11.  Ye  i>Juill  conceive  chaff,  ye  nhall  hrimj  foitli  stuhUc  ;  your  hreafh 
(as)  fire  shall  devour  you.  The  first  clause  contains  a  common  Su-riptnral 
figure  for  failure  and  frustration.  (See  chap.  xxvi.  18.)  Chalf  and  stubble 
are  not  named  as  being  dry  and  innutritious  food  (Vitringa),  which  would 
be  wholly  out  of  place  in  this  connection,  but  as  worthless  and  perishable 
substances.  Lowlh  follows  Seeker  and  the  Targum  in  reading  *nn  1D3  for 
DSni")  (^my  spirit  like  fire  :hall  consume  you.)  Grotius  takes  nn  in  the  sense 
oi  avyer,  Clericus  in  that  oi  })ride.  Calvin  understands  the  clause  to  mean 
that  their  own  breath  should  kindle  the  fire  that  destroyed  them.  As 
specimens  of  opposite  extremes  in  exposition,  it  may  be  mentioned,  that 
J.  1).  Michaelis  applies  this  la^t  clause  to  the  infection  of  the  plague  as  com- 
municated by  the  breath,  Cocceius  to  the  evils  arising  from  the  abuse  of 
religious  liberty  in  Germany  and  Holland,  and  especially  from  efforts  to 
reunite  the  Protestant  and  Komish  Churches. 

12.  Aud  iialions  shall  be  liine-hilns  (or  burnitiys  of  lime)  ;  thorns  cut  tip, 
in  the  fire  thty  shall  burn.  By  nations  wc  are  not  to  understand  the 
different  races  mingled  in  Sennacherib's  army,  but  all  nations  that  incur 
the  wrath  of  God.  The  same  word  burninfjs  is  applied  to  the  aromatic 
fumigations  used  at  ancient  burials  (Jer,  xxxiv.  5),  to  which  there  may  bo 
Bome  allusion  here.  The  Hebrew  word  according  to  analogy  may  be  a  noun 
of  place  (llendewerk),  but  is  commonly  supposed  to  denote  burnings, 
Clericus  connects  the  clauses  by  supposing  that  the  thonis  are  described  as 
being  burnt  in  lime-kilns.  The  idtas  expressed  are  those  of  cpiickness  and 
intensity.  The  thorns  are  perhaps  described  as  cut  up,  to  suggest  that  they 
are  drv',  and  therefore  more  combustible.  On  this  same  verso  J.  D. 
Michaelis  ob.serves,  that  the  Jews  at  that  time  burnt  the  bodies  of  the  dead  ; 
Kiiobel,  that  they  regarded  the  custom  with  abhorrence.  The  former  adds 
that  when  they  burnt  the  Assyrians  they  might  be  said  to  burn  a  nation. 
Gill  of  course  refers  the  vcr.se  to  tho  future  destruction  of  anlichristian 
liome.     (Ilov.  xvii.  10,  xviii.  8.) 

i;5.  Hear,  ye  far,  tihat  I  hare  done,  and  hiotr,  ye  near,  my  miyht. 
hy  far  and  near  the  Targum  understands  confirmed  saints  and  repentant 
fciuuers  ;  Junius,  the  Jews  and  Gent  les ;  Uendowcrk,  tho  ten  tribes  and  tho 


Ver.  U.]  ISALIII  XXXIII.  11 

Jews ;  but  Barnes,  more  uaturally,  all  without  exception.  According  to 
Eitzig,  the  near  are  commanded  to  know,  because  they  can  see  for  them- 
selves. Henderson  retains  the  common  version,  achnouJedrje.  According 
to  Hendewerk,  this  is  the  beginning  of  a  third  distinct  prediction.  It  is  really 
an  apostrophe,  expressing  the  magnitude  of  the  event  predicted  in  the 
foregoing  conte.xt. 

14.  Afraid  in  Zion  are  the  sinners  ;  not  at  or  near  Zion,  meaning  the 
Assyrians  (Sanctius),  but  in  Zion,  i.  e.  in  Jerusalem,  referring  to  the  im- 
pious Jews  themsidves  ;  treinhVuuj  has  seized  the  ini]ii(nts,  a  parallel  expres- 
sion to  sinners.  The  meaning  hi/pocrites  is  rejected  by  the  modern  lexico- 
graphers for  that  of  impure  or  gross  sinners.  So  Calvin,  in  the  margin  of 
his  version,  has  sceleratos.  The  persons  so  described  are  the  wicked  and 
unbelieving  portion  of  the  Jews.  Gill  applies  the  terms  directly  to  formal 
professors  in  the  reformed  churches  ;  Grotius,  to  such  of  the  Jews  as  had 
apostatized  to  heathenism  in  order  to  conciliate  Sennacherib.  On  this  far- 
fetched hypothesis  Yitringa  well  remarks,  that  such  expedients  were  un- 
known in  ancient  warfare,  and  that  Sennacherib  probably  cared  nolhmg  as 
to  the  religion  of  those  whom  he  attacked.  What  follows  might  be  under- 
stood as  the  language  of  the  Prophet  himself,  giving  a  reason  for  the  terror 
of  the  wicked.  Interpreters  appear  to  be  unanimous,  however,  in  making 
it  the  language  of  the  wicked  Jews  themselves.  At  the  same  time,  they 
difter  greatly  as  to  the  time  at  which  these  words  must  be  supposed  to 
have  been  spoken.  Some  refer  them  to  the  past,  and  understand  the  verse 
to  mean  that  they  are  now  in  terror  who  once  said  thus  and  thus.  On  this 
hypothesis,  the  words  themselves  might  be  explained  as  the  language  of 
Who  of  ns  is  afraid  (113*)  of  {he  decoHrinfj  fire  ?  Wlio  of  us  is  afraid  of 
everla'itinrj  burnintfs  ?  Or  with  Vitringa,  as  the  language  of  complaint.  Who 
of  lis  can  dwell  with  (this)  devourinff  fire?  Who  of  its  can  dwell  with  [these) 
perpetual  burninrfs  1  i.  e.  with  a  God  of  such  severity  ?  But  the  great  mass 
of  interpreters,  both  old  and  new,  suppose  this  to  be  given  not  as  the  former 
but  the  present  language  of  the  wicked  Jews,  when  actually  seized  with 
ten'or.  Not  those  who  once  said,  but  who  now  say,  &c.  On  this  supposi- 
tion, it  can  be  expressive  neither  of  defiance  nor  complaint,  but  only  of 
alarm  and  desperation.  Ewald,  adopting  this  interpretation  in  the  general, 
gives  "lli*  the  sense  of  j^rolec'.ing,  derived  from  its  primary  import  of 
sojourning  as  a  guest  and  a  friend  ;  but  this  is  a  gratuitous  departure  from 
the  usage  of  the  language.  Those  who  adhere  to  it  are  still  divided  as  to 
the  application  of  the  figures.  Grotius  understands  by  the  fire  the  Assyrian 
host  that  menaced  them.  Who  can  abide  this  devouring  fire  f  Piscator, 
the  fire  of  God's  -wrath,  as  executed  by  the  Assyrians.  Aben  Ezra,  the 
wrath  of  God  as  exercised  against  the  Assyrians  themselves.  This  is  the 
interpretation  commonly  adopted.  It  supposes  the  words  to  be  expressive 
of  the  feelings  excited  by  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  host.  If  this  be  a 
specimen  of  God's  vindicatory  justice,  what  may  we  expect?  Who  of  us 
can  dwell  with  [this)  devouring  fire  1  Who  of  us  can  dwell  with  these  per- 
petual burnings  .■  Many  make  the  language  still  more  emphatic,  by  sup- 
posing that  the  Prophet  argues  from  the  less  to  the  greater.  If  these  are 
God's  temporal  judgments,  what  must  his  eternal  wrath  be  ?  If  the  mo- 
mentary strokes  of  his  hand  are  thus  resistless,  irho  of  us  can  dwell  with  the 
devouring  fire,  xoho  of  us  can  dwell  with  everlasting  burnings  ?  The  last  words 
may  then  be  taken  in  their  strongest  and  most  unrestricted  sense,  Hender- 
son thinks  they  have  no  meaning  if  they  do  not  refer  to  eternal  punish- 
ment.    W  docs  not  here  mean /or  us  or  with  ks,  but  is  used  in  its  widest 


12  ISAIAH  XXXIII.  [Yer.  15. 

sense,  as  expressive  of  relation  in  general,  to  qualify  the  pronoun — THjo 
with  respect  to  us,  i.  e.  xvho  of  us,  as  opposed  to  meii  in  geneial.  Gesenius 
describes  it  as  an  emphatic  formula,  and  yet  omits  it  in  the  translation. 
Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  take  fire  and  burning  as  a  poetical  description  of 
the  plague,  by  which  they  suppose  the  Ass}Tians  to  have  perished.  Clericus, 
viore  sun,  understands  it  of  the  burning  of  the  villages  of  Judah  by  the 
invaders.  Knobel  says  the  burning  was  called  everlasting,  because  it  was 
everlasting  in  its  consequences,  i.  e.  it  destroyed  what  it  consumed  for 
ever.  But  who  could  or  would  speak,  in  any  language,  of  a  man's  being 
hung  with  an  everlasting  rope,  or  killed  by  an  everlasting  stroke  of 
li«^htuing  ?  l)e  I)ien'8  construction  of  the  last  clause,  as  containing  se- 
veral distinct  propositions  (quis  comniorabilur  vos'rtim/  vjnis  devomt,  Ac), 
is  ingenious,  but  unnatural  and  wholly  unnecessary. 

15.  This  versc  contains  a  description  of  the  righteous  man,  not  unlike 
that  in  the  fifteenth  and  twenty-fourth  Psalms.  WnlLing  rir/liteousnesses 
i.  c.  leading  a  righteous  life.  Wiilk  is  a  common  Scriptural  expression  for 
the  course  of  conduct.  The  plural  form  of  the  other  word  may  eitht.r  bo 
used  to  mark  it  as  an  abstract  term,  or  as  an  emphatic  expression  for  ful- 
ness or  completeness  of  rectitude.  In  order  to  retain  the  figure  of  walk- 
ing, the  preposition  in  may  be  supplied  before  the  noun  ;  but  in  Hebrew  it 
seems  to  be  governed  directly  by  the  verb,  or  to  qualify  it  as  an  ailverb. 
Aii'l  speakiTKj  right  things,  or  (taking  the  plural  merely  as  an  abstract)  rccti- 
ttile  or  rightroiisness.  The  idea  is  not  merely  that  of  speaking  truth  as 
opposed  to  falsehood,  but  that  of  rectitude  in  speech  as  distinguished  from 
rectitude  of  action.  Rejecting  or  despising  (or,  combining  both  ideas,  re- 
ji'iting  with  contoiifit)  the  gfiin  <>/  ojijiressions  or  extortions.  Shakiitg  his 
hands  from  talaiif/  hold  of  the  hrihe,  an  expressive  gesture  of  iu'liguant 
refusal,  which  Forerius  compares  to  Pilate's  washing  his  hands,  and 
Gataker  to  Paul's  shaking  off  the  viper.  Malvenda  imagines  that  the  terms 
are  so  selected  as  to  suggest  the  idea  of  a  weighty  gift.  Gesenius  and 
others  greatly  weaken  the  expression,  and  indeed  destroy  its  graphic  form, 
by  rendering  tlie  phrase,  iihose  hand  refuses  to  recrlrr  a  bribe.  The  true 
sense  is  forcibly  conveyed  in  J.  D.  Michaelis's  version,  shakes  his  hands 
that  no  bribe  maij  sticli  to  them,  and  in  Gill's  homely  paraphrase,  that  inm't 
receive  antj,  but  uhen  they  are  put  into  his  hands  i>hal,es  them  out.  The 
Chaldee  Paraphrase  of  this  first  clause  contains  the  expression  mammon  of 
falsehood,  which  may  be  compared  with  the  mammon  of  unrighteommss  in 
Luke  xvi.  9.  Stoppiuij  his  ears  from  hearing  bloods,  i.  e.  plans  of  murder, 
or  as  Lowth  expresses  it,  the  proposal  of  bloodshed.  For  the  usage  of  the 
plural  form  D'OT,  see  the  note  on  chap.  i.  15.  Shutting'his  eyes  from  look- 
iwj  at  evil,  i.  e.  from  conniving  at  it,  or  even  beholding  it  as  an  indifferent 
spectator.  The  3  is  then  a  mere  connective,  like  the  English  at  or  on  ; 
but  the  combination  of  this  verb  and  i)articlo  appears  in  many  cases  to 
denote  the  act  of  gazing  at  a  thing  with  pleasure,  which  idea  would  be 
perfectly  appropriate  here.  Lowth  has  agaituft  the  appearance  of  evil, 
which  does  not  convey  the  exact  sense  of  tlie  original.  According  to  the 
natural  connection  of  the  passage,  this  verse  would  seem  to  contain  the 
answer  to  the  question  in  ver.  11,  and  is  so  underst<^Jod  by  those  who  make 
the  (juestion  nieim.  Who  can  stand  before  this  terrible  Jthovah  ?  But  on 
the  supposition  of  an  allusion  to  eternal  punishment,  the  answer  is  absurd, 
for  it  implies  thiit  the  righteous  man  can  or  wdl  endure  it.  This  may 
cither  be  regarded  as  a  proof  that  there  is  no  sucli  allusion  to  eternal 
punishment  in  vi  r.  II,  or  as  a  imiof  that  this  is  not  an  aiiswir  totheques- 


Yku.  1G,  17.]  ISALIII  XXXIir.  13 

tion  there  recorded.  The  former  conckisiou  is  adojited  by  the  latest 
German  writers,  who  understand  this  verse  as  meaning  that  God  is  a  con- 
suming fire  only  to  the  wicked,  and  that  the  righteous  man,  as  here 
described,  is  perfectly  secure.  On  the  other  hand,  Henderson  separates 
this  verse  from  the  preceding  context  by  a  larger  space  than  usual,  making 
this  the  beginning,  as  it  were,  of  a  new  piii-agraph.  To  this  construction 
there  is  the  less  objection,  as  the  sentence  is  evidently  incomplete  in  this 
verse,  the  apodosis  being  added  in  the  next. 

IG.  He  (the  character  described  in  vcr.  15)  hi(jh  places  shall  inhuhit. 
This  does  not  denote  exalted  station  in  society,  but  safety  from  enemies  in 
being  above  their  reach,  as  appears  from  the  other  clause.  Fastnesses  (or 
strongholds)  of  rocks  {shall  be)  his  lofty  jilace,  i.e.  his  refuge  or  his  place 
of  safety,  as  in  chap.  xxv.  12.  To  the  idea  of  security  is  added  that  of  sus- 
tenance, without  which  the  first  would  be  of  no  avail.  T/iv  bread  is  given, 
including  the  ideas  of  allotment  or  appointment  and  of  actual  supply. 
Ills  loaicr  sure,  or,  retaining  the  strict  sense  of  the  participle,  secured.  At 
the  same  time  there  is  evident  allusion  to  the  moral  usnge  of  the  word  as 
signifying  foithful,  true,  the  oj)posite  of  that  which  fails,  deceives,  or  dis- 
appoints the  expectation,  in  which  sense  the  same  word,  with  a  negative,  is 
applied  by  Jeremiah  (xv.  18)  to  tvaters  that  fail.  Clcri(;us  explains  the 
first  clause  of  this  verse  as  a  promise  that  those  living  in  the  plain  should 
be  as  safe  as  if  they  lived  in  the  mountains.  Grotius  explains  the  second 
as  a  promise  of  literal  deliverance  from  famine.  Knobel  arbitrarily  applies 
the  whole  to  protection  and  supply  in  a  time  of  siege,  and  then  iiifers  that 
the  passage  must  have  been  composed  before  Sennacherib  approached  Jeru- 
salem, because  the  Prophet  afterwards  was  well  aware  that  no  sie^^e  hud 
taken  place  at  all.  This  charge  of  false  prediction  is  exploded  by  the 
simple  observation,  that  the  verse  is  an  assurance,  clothed  in  figurative 
language,  of  general  protection  and  support  to  the  righteous.  Vitringa's 
reference  of  the  words  in  their  lower  sense  to  the  support  of  the  Levitical 
priesthood,  and  in  their  higher  sense  to  the  happiness  of  heaven,  "oes  as 
much  to  an  extreme,  though  in  an  opposite  direction. 

17.  A  king  in  his  beauty  shall  tliijie  eyes  behold.  Kimchi,  by  an 
arbitrary  syntax,  takes  the  future  as  a  past  tense,  and  refers  it  to  the  km" 
of  Assyria,  whom  their  eyes  had  seen  but  should  see  no  more.  Ik'sides 
the  grammatical. objection  to  this  version,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  other 
clause,  and  unless  that  also  be  referred  to  the  same  subject  by  supplving 
king  before  a  distant  land.  Of  those  who  take  the  futures  in  their  proper 
meaning,  some  suppose  Jehovah  to  be  meant  (Yitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis), 
others  the  Messiah  (Abarbonel),  but  most  writers  Hezekiah,  either  exclu- 
sively (Gcseuiusj,  or  as  a  type  of  Christ  (Calvin).  For  this  departure  from 
his  customary  mode  of  exposition,  Calvin  thinks  it  necessary  to  apologise 
by  saying,  ne  qtiis  me  hie  allegorias  scqui  putet  a  guihus  sum  aliejius.  To 
see  the  king  in  his  beauty  docs  not  mean  in  his  moral  excellence  (Hende- 
werk),  but  in  his  royal  state,  with  tacit  reference  to  his  previous  state  of 
mourning  and  dejection  (chap,  xxxvii.  1).  They  {i.e.  thine  eyes)  fhall 
behold  a  land  of  distances  or  distant  places.  The  most  natural  explanation 
of  this  phrase  would  be  a  distant  land,  in  which  sense  it  is  used  bv  Jere- 
miah (viii.  19),  and  a  part  of  it  by  Zechariah  (x.  9),  and  by  both  in  refer- 
ence to  exile  or  captivity.  The  verse  before  us,  taken  by  itself,  might  be 
understood  as  a  threatening  that  the  Jews  should  see  the  king  of  Babylon 
in  his  royal  state,  and  in  a  distant  land.  Interpreters  seem  to  be  agi-eed, 
however,  that  in  this  connection  it  can  be  taken  only  as  a  promise.    Grotius 


li  ISAIAH  XXXIII.  (Ver.  18. 

accordingly  explains  it  to  mean  that  after  the  fall  of  the  Assyrian  host,  the 
Jews  should  be  free  to  go  abroad  without  restraint,  and  espocially  to  visit 
tlic  scene  of  the  catastrophe.  This  explanation  he  illustrates  by  a  parallel 
from  Virgil.  Pauduntur  por(oe,juv(it  ire  ft  Doricacastra  descrtosque  vidcre 
locoH  lUnsque  relictum.  Hitzig  confines  it  to  their  literally  sceiny  far  and 
wide  from  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  their  view  being  no  longer  obstructed 
l)y  entrenchments  or  the  presence  of  the  enemy.  liUther  and  others,  on 
the  contrary,  suppose  the  land  itself  to  be  here  described  as  actually  widened 
by  an  accession  of  conquered  territority.  To  all  these  explanations  it  may 
be  objected  that  the  Prophet  does  not  speak  of  distant  boundaries  or  fron- 
tiers, as  in  chap.  xxvi.  15,  but  of  a  distant  lavd.  The  only  explanation  of 
the  verse  as  a  promise,  against  which  this  o])j('ction  does  not  lie,  is  that  of 
Henderson,  who  translates  the  clause,  they  shall  sie  distant  lands,  and  ex- 
plains it  to  mean  that  instead  of  being  coopod  up  within  the  walls  of  Jeru- 
salem by  the  Ass^Tians,  the  uihabitants  should  not  only  freely  traverse  their 
own  land,  but  visit  distant  nations.  Whether  the  liberty  of  foreign  travel 
is  in  this  conn«;tion  an  appropriate  promise,  may  be  made  a  question. 
Piscator  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that  their  eyes  should  see 
ambassadors  from  a  far  country,  viz.  those  of  Berodach-baladan  (2  Kings 
XX.  12).  But  in  this  case  the  most  important  word  of  the  sentence  is 
supplied  by  mere  conjecture.  Vitringa  applies  the  whole  verse,  in  its 
lower  sense,  to  the  conquest  of  the  Maccabees  and  their  enlargement  of 
the  Jewish  territory,  but  in  a  higher  sense  to  the  glorious  reign  of  the 
Messiah. 

18.  Thy  heart  shall  meditate  terror.  This  does  not  mean,  it  shall  con- 
ceive or  experience  present  terror,  but  reflect  on  that  which  is  already  past. 
What  follows  is  explained  by  some  as  the  language  (if  the  Jews  in  their 
terror  calling  for  the  othcers  on  whom  they  depended  for  protection. 
But  the  officers  here  named  are  not  those  to  whom  they  wojild  pro- 
bably have  looked  in  this  emergency.  Others  more  naturally  understand 
it  therefore  as  the  triumphant  exclamation  of  the  people  when  they  found 
themselves  so  suddenly  delivered  from  their  enemies.  ]l'hcre  i.s  he  thai 
counted  ?  vlieie  is  he  that  uciiihed  ?  where  is  he  (hat  counted  the  towers  f 
As  a  noun,  "ISD  means  a  scribe,  and  is  commonly  so  rendered  here.  Some 
even  give  it  the  New  Testament  sense  of  '■y^a/ji,/j,aTi{j{,  a  lenrned  man  or 
doctor  of  the  law.  So  the  Septuagint  (^'ca/x/xar/xo/),  the  Vulgate  (literatus), 
Luther  {Schrifti/rlchrten),  Vitringa  {ilocUi.s).  This  leads  of  course  to  an 
analogous  interpretation  of  the  other  terms,  as  meaning  leijis  rerlia  pon- 
derous, doctor  parvuloruin,  dialerlicus  sublili'i,  <fcc.,  &c.  Others,  adhering 
to  the  Hebrew  usage  of  the  noun  "isb,  understand  by  it  a  secretary,  finan- 
cial or  militaiT,  perhaps  a  secretary  of  state,  or  of  war,  or  an  inspector- 
general  (liarnes).  The  clause  is  still  more  modernized  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  : 
where  is  the  general  f  where  is  the  engineer  ?  But  as  the  second  "12D  is 
evidently  construed  as  a  participle,  and  in  the  primary'  sense  of  counting 
it  is  much  more  natural  to  understand  the  first  "^SD  and  /ptJ'  in  like  man- 
ner, as  denoting  him  who  counted,  him  who  weighed.  This  is  Ewald's  con- 
struction (ti'er  zdhltc,  wer  toog),  and  Lowlh  gives  the  same  sense  to  the 
words  as  nouns  {the  arcomjitani,  the  tcelglier  of  tribute).  Thus  explained, 
they  nray  be  applied  either  to  the  instruments  of  the  Assyrian  domination  in 
Judea,  or  to  certain  necessary  ofhcers  attached  to  the  besieging  nnny.  The 
counting  and  weighing  may  be  either  that  of  tribute,  or  of  military  wages 
The  second  "^OD  denotes  the  same  act  as  the  first,  but  is  applied  expressly 
to  another  object.     The  totocrs  are  of  course  the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem. 


Ver.  19.J  ISAIAH  XXXIII.  15 

By  counting  tbcm,  some  understand  surveying  them,  cither  with  a  ^•iow  to 
garrisoning  or  dismantling  ;  others,  the  act  oi"  reconnoitring  them  from  with- 
out, which  some  ascribe  i:)articularly  to  Rabshakeh  or  Sennacherib  himself. 
The  general  meaning  of  the  verse  is  plain,  as  an  expression  of  surprise  aud 
joy,  that  the  oppressor  or  besieger  had  now  vanished.  The  Apostle  Paul, 
in  1  Cor.  i.  20,  has  a  sentence  so  much  like  this,  in  the  threefold  repetition 
of  the  question  ivkere,  and  in  the  use  of  the  word  scribe,  that  it  cannot  bo 
regarded  as  a  mere  fortuitous  coincidence.  Of  the  mutual  relation  of  the 
passages,  two  views  have  been  taken  by  interpreters.  Junius  and  Cocceius 
regard  that  in  Corinthians  as  a  quotation  of  the  one  before  us,  and  Vitringa 
makes  the  former  determine  the  whole  meaning  of  the  latter.  He  accord- 
ingly explains  the  Hebrew  words  as  all  denoting  some  form  of  worldly  wis- 
dom and  sagacity,  or  its  possessors,  and  the  whole  verse  as  implying  that 
the  great  deliverance  had  not  been  wrought  b}'  any  such  means  but  by  God 
alone.  The  violence  done  by  this  interpretation  to  the  language  of  the 
Prophet  is  enough  of  itself  to  make  the  hypothesis  on  which  it  rests  a  doubt- 
ful one.  Calvin,  on  the  other  hand,  denies  that  Paul  has  any  reference  to 
this  place,  which  is  going  too  far,  since  it  is  probable,  as  Henderson  ob- 
serves, that  the  structure  of  the  one  passage  may  have  suggested  the  other. 
The  expression  itis  loritten,  in  the  preceding  verse  of  the  epistle,  introduces 
a  quotation  from  chap.  xxix.  14,  but  does  not  necessarily  extend  to  the  next 
verse,  which  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  mere  imitation,  as  to  form  aud 
diction,  of  the  one  before  us. 

19.  The  fierce  {ov  determined)  people  thoxL  shall  not  see.  Thou  shalt  see 
no  more  the  Assyrians,  whose  disappearance  was  implied  in  the  questions 
of  the  foregoing  verse.  The  essential  idea  of  Tyu  seems  to  be  that  of  lirui- 
ness  and  decision,  perhaps  with  the  accessory  idea  of  agressive  boldness. 
It  is  taken  in  the  stronger  sense  of  imp)udent  by  several  of  the  ancient  ver- 
sions. De  Dieu  and  Capellus  (the  two  Ludovici,  as  Vitringa  calls  them) 
would  read  Tyi?  so  as  to  secure  a  parallel  to  W?"^  in  the  other  clause.  (Com- 
pare Ps.  cxiv.  1.)  A  people  deep  of  lip  from  hearing,  i.  e.  too  obscure  for 
thee  to  understand.  Deep  is  referred  to  the  sound  of  the  voice,  the  mode 
of  utterance,  by  the  Septuagint  {(SuOv-pamv)  Clericus  (e  profundo  gutture 
loqnentem),  and  Vitringa,  who  illustrates  the  expression  by  the  difference 
between  the  utterance  of  the  Swiss  and  the  Saxons  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
French  and  EugHsh  on  the  other.  But  the  later  writers  more  correctly 
understand  deep  as  denoting  obscure  or  unintelligible.  The  preposition  be- 
fore hearing,  though  not  directly  negative,  is  virtually  so,  as  it  denotes  array 
from,  which  is  really  equivalent  to  so  as  not  to  hear,  or  be  heard.  (See  the 
note  on  chap.  v.  6.)  Barbarous  tongue  (or  of  a  barbarous  tongue),  without 
meaning  (literally,  there  is  no  meaning).  The  verb  JV?,  in  its  other  forms, 
means  to  mock  or  scoff,  an  idea  closely  connected,  in  the  Hebrew  usage, 
with  that  of  foreign  language,  either  because  the  latter  seems  ridiculous  to 
those  who  do  not  understand  it,  or  because  unmeaning  jargon  is  often  used 
in  mockery.  Jerome's  translation  of  the  last  phrase,  in  quo  nidla  est  sapi- 
entia,  changes  the  meaning  of  the  clause  entii-ely.  Some  of  the  latest  Ger- 
man writers  understand  it  to  signify  not  only  unintelligible  but  unmeaning, 
and  regard  the  description  as  an  illustration  of  Jewish  narrowness  aud  pre- 
judice. The  parallelism  might  have  taught  them  that  no  more  was  meant 
to  be  conveyed  than  the  actual  want  of  meaning  to  the  hearers.  The  whole 
is  a  mere  paraphrastic  description  of  a  people  altogether  strange  and  foreign. 
Henderson  supposes  the  expressions  to  refer  to  the  Medo-Persian  mercen- 
aries in  the  Assyrian  army,  but  most  interpreters  apply  them  directly  to  the 


IG  ISAIAH  XXXIIl.  [Ver.  20,  21. 

Assyrians  themselvos.     Accordinf*  to  Gill,  the  lanj^uage  here  meant  is  th; 
Latin  ;  but  the  people  \w  explains  to  be  both  Turks  and  Papists. 

20.  Ilehnhi  Zion,  the  cittj  of  uiir  fenlirals.  Instead  of  the  presence  of 
fort'ij^n  eneniifs,  see  Jerusalem  ouce  more  the  scene  of  stated  solemnities. 
Ildubigant  and  Lowth,  on  the  a!lef,'ed  authority  of  the  Tar«,'um,  read  thuu 
shah  see,  which  is  not  only  unnccossarj',  but  less  expressive  than  the  direct 
command  to  see  the  object  as  already  present.  The  address  is  to  the  people 
ns  an  individual,  and  not  to  Zion  itself,  as  Luther  and  the  Tar;,'um  have  it. 
Thinr  et/es  shall  ser  ,Jfiiisal,'m  a  ifiiiet  home,  a  ttut  {that)  shall  not  be  removed 
(or  liihcn  (loini).  The  whole  of  this  description  is  drawn  from  the  usages 
of  the  nomadic  life.  Its  slakes  shall  uot  be  jiulled  up  for  eirr,  and  all  its  cords 
shall  not  be  broken,  or  in  our  idiom,  none  of  Us  cords  shall  be  broken.  Ac- 
cording to  Kircchi,  nV3?  means  for  a  long  time  (3*1  pTj ;  according  to  Hen- 
derson, until  the  end  of  the  old  dispensation.  The  peculiar  beauty  of  the 
imagery  lies  in  ascribing  pennanence  to  a  tent,  which,  from  its  very  nature, 
must  be  moveable.  This  may  either  imply  a  previous  state  of  agitation  and 
histability,  or  that  the  church,  though  weak  in  herself,  should  be  strength- 
ened and  established  by  the  power  of  God.  Gill  understands  the  verse  as 
describing  what  he  calls  the  J'hiladiljihian  church  state.  Conrad  Pellican 
applies  it  to  the  rest  and  peace  of  heaven  ;  Vitringa,  to  the  state  of  the 
Jews  under  the  Maccabees,  considered  as  a  type  of  the  Christian  Church. 
He  also  robs  the  passage  of  its  beautiful  simplicity,  by  making  it  the  lan- 
guage of  a  choir  of  teachers,  or  of  the  Prophet  speaking  in  their  name,  and 
bv  giving  to  each  part  of  the  tent  a  specific  spiritual  sense,  the  stakes  being 
the  promises,  and  the  ropes  the  hope  and  faith  of  time  believers.  On  this 
mode  of  expounding  tlie  prophetic  figures,  see  the  exposition  of  chap.  v.  8. 

2L  liui  there  shall  Jehovah  he  mi(jhty  for  us  (or  in  our  hthalj).  Some 
take  the  particles  D^<  *3  separately,  as  meaning  because  certainly.  There  is 
no  need,  however,  of  departing  from  the  ordinary  sense  of  tut,  which  the 
phrase  has  elsewhere  after  a  negation.  The  connection  of  the  verses  is, 
that  Zion  shall  never  be  weakened  or  removed,  hut  on  the  contrary  Jehovah, 
&c.  The  constructi(m  of  1*"I6<  as  a  mere  epithet  of  nin*  is  forbidden  by  the 
collocation  of  the  words.  The  sense  seems  to  be  that  he  will  there  display 
his  power  for  our  protection  and  advantage.  A  place  of  rivers,  streams, 
hroud  (on)  loth  hands  (or  sides),  i.  e.  completely  surrounding  her.  Coccjius 
connects  this  clause  with  the  verb  of  the  preceding  verse,  {thine  eyes  shall 
see  a  place,  dc),  and  throws  the  immediately  foregoing  words  into  a  par- 
enthesis. J.  P.  Michaelis  supplies  we  have.  Hut  most  interpreters  con- 
nect these  words  directly  with  Jehovah.  Of  these  some  suppose  DlpO  to  be 
used  like  the  Latin  loco  meaning  in  the  place,  instead.  The  promise  then 
is,  that  Jehovah  will  supply  the  place  of  streams  and  rivers.  Others  more 
boldly  put  Dlp^  in  apposition  with  >^^Ty,  luul  explain  the  clause  to  mean 
that  Jehovah  will  himself  be  a  pbice  of  streams  and  rivers  to  the  people. 
Clericus  supposes  the  allusion  to  nomadic  life  to  be  still  continued,  and  the 
people  to  be  described  as  encamping  on  the  banks  of  noble  streams,  but 
without  incurring  the  dangers  usually  incident  to  such  a  situation.  Accord- 
ing to  Gill,  the  idias  meant  to  be  conveyed  are  those  of  abundance,  freedom, 
pleaf-ant  sitoation  and  security.  Many  inter]»reters  sujipose  the  situation 
of  Jerusalem  to  bo  here  compared  with  that  of  Nineveh,  Memphis,  and  other 
cities  sitiiated  on  great  rivers,  the  want  of  which  advantiige  was  abundantly 
compensated  bv  the  divine  protection.  But  the  latest  German  writers 
understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  God  himself  would  be  to  Zion  what 
moats  and  trenches  arc  to  fortified  cities.     This  idea  is  neither  natural  in 


Ver.  22-24.]  ISAIAH  XXXIII.  17 

itself  nor  naturally  suggested  by  the  words  streamt  an  1  rivers,  the  plurals  of 
the  terms  which  are  commonly  applied  to  the  Nile  and  the  Euphrates.  The 
most  obvious  explanation  seems  to  be  that  this  clause  is  an  amplification  of 
the  adverb  D^.  Jehovah  will  he  miyhty  for  us  there.  What  place  is  meant? 
A  place  of  rivers  and  streams  broad  on  both  sides,  i.  e.  spreading  in  every 
direction.  There  is  the  less  occasion,  therefore,  to  read  Dy*  with  Lowth  or  D?' 
with  Koppe.  The  situation  described  is  one  which  has  all  the  advantages 
of  mighty  streams  without  their  dangers.  There  shall  not  go  in  it  an  oared 
vessel  (literally,  a  shijJ  of  oar),  and  a  gallant  ship  shall  not  pass  through  it. 
The  parallel  expressions  both  refer,  no  doubt,  to  ships  of  war,  which,  in 
ancient  times,  were  propelled  by  oars.  The  antithesis  which  some  assume 
between  trading  ships  and  vessels  of  war  would  here  be  out  of  place.  Tbe 
fine  old  English  phrase  gallant  ship  is  ill  exchanged  by  some  translators  for 
■niigldy  or  magnificent  vessel. 

22.  For  Jehovah  our  Judge,  Jehovah  our  Lau-glrer,  Jehovah  our  King, 
he  trill  save  us.  This  is  a  repetition  of  the  same  idea,  but  without  the 
figures  of  the  preceding  verse.  Ewald  agrees  with  the  older  writers  in 
making  Jehovah  the  subject  and  the  other  nouns  the  predicates  of  a  series 
of  short  sentences  [Jehovah  is  our  Judge,  &c.).  Gesenius  makes  them  all 
the  complex  subject  of  the  verb  at  the  end.  The  general  meaning  is  the 
same  in  either  case. 

23.  Thy  ropes  are  cast  loose;  they  do  not  hold  upright  their  mast ;  they 
do  not  spread  the  sail  ;  then  is  shared  plunder  of  booty  in  plenty  ;  the  lame 
spoil  the  spod.  Cocceius  refers  the  first  clause  to  the  tent  (thy  cords  are 
lengthened)  and  the  rest  to  a  ship.  Clericus  makes  the  whole  relate  to  a 
tent,  and  supposes  pH  to  denote  the  central  pole  or  post.  Interpreters  are 
agreed,  however,  that  there  is,  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse,  a  sudden 
apostrophe  to  the  enemy  considered  as  a  ship.  This  figure  would  be  natu- 
rally suggested  by  those  of  ver.  21.  It  was  there  said  that  no  vessel  should 
approach  the  holy  city.  But  now  the  Prophet  seems  to  remember  that  one 
had  done  so,  the  proud  ship  of  Assyria.  But  what  was  its  fiite  ?  He  sees 
it  dismantled  and  abandoned  to  its  enemies.  The  first  phrase  is  rendered 
in  Robinson's  Gesenius,  thy  tacklings  are  broken  in  pieces,  an  expression 
which  could  hardly  be  appHed  to  ropes.  The  Rabbins  understand  it  to 
mean,  thy  ropes  are  abandoned  by  the  sailors.  The  Vulgate  version  is 
laxati  S2mt.  The  last  two  explanations  may  be  combined  by  supposing  the 
Avords  to  mean  that  they  cast  the  ropes  loose  and  abandon  them.  Kimchi 
explains  P  as  an  adverb  meaning  luell  or  rightly ;  Cocceius  as  a  noun, 
meaning  the  base  or  socket  of  the  mast.  This  last  is  adopted  by  most  of 
the  late  writers  ;  but  an  ecjually  natural  construction  is  to  make  P  an  adjec- 
tive meaning  upright,  which  is  justified  by  usage  and  peculiarly  appropriate 
in  this  connection.  Some  take  DJ  in  its  more  usual  sense  of  flag  or  banner, 
without  materially  changing  that  of  the  whole  sentence.  tN  marks  the 
transition  from  abandonment  to  plunder,  whether  past  or  future.  ?^^'  "jy 
appears  to  be  an  emphatic  pleonasm  or  reduplicatiou.  The  eagerness  of  the 
pillage  is  expressed  by  making  the  lame  join  in  it. 

24.  And  the  inhabitant  shall  not  say,  I  am  sick  (or  have  heen  sick).  This 
may  either  mean  that  none  shall  be  sick,  or  that  those  who  have  been  so 
shall  be  recovered.  Some  interpreters  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  plague. 
The  people  dwelling  in  it  {is)  forgiven  {its)  iniquity.  Some  suppose  this  to 
be  an  explanation  of  the  sickness  mentioned  in  the  first  clause,  as  a  spiritual 
malady.     Others  understand  it  as  explaining  bodily  disease  to  be  the  couso- 

VOL.  II.  B 


18  ISA  Li  1 1  XXXIV. 

qucnce  and  pnnishment  of  sin.  The  words  may  be  taken  in  a  wider  sense 
than  cither  of  these,  namely,  that  Bufffring  shall  cuase  with  sin  which  is 
its  cause.  Thus  understood,  the  words  are  strictly  applicable  only  to  a 
state  of  things  still  future,  either  upim  earth  or  iu  heaven.  The  last  clause 
shews  the  absurdity  of  mukiug  the  first  mean  merely  that  no  one  shall  ex- 
cuse himself  from  joining  in  the  pillage  on  the  plea  of  sickness. 


CHAPTER   XXXIV. 

This  chapter  and  the  next  appear  to  constitute  one  prophecy,  the  first 
part  of  which  (chap,  xxxiv.)  is  tilled  with  threatenings  against  the  enemies 
of  the  church,  the  latter  part  (chap,  xxxv.)  with  promises  to  the  church 
itself.  The  threatenings  of  chap,  xxxiv.  are  directed,  first  against  the 
nations  in  general,  vers.  1-4,  and  then  against  Edom  in  particular,  vers. 
5-15,  with  a  closing  affirmation  of  the  truth  and  certainty  of  the  predic- 
tion, vers.  IG,  17.  The  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  Ziou  and  the  desola- 
tion of  their  lands  are  represented  by  the  figures  of  a  great  sacrifice  or 
slaughter,  the  fulling  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  the  conversion  of  the  soil  into 
brimstone  and  the  waters  into  pilch,  and  the  inhabitation  of  animals  peculiar 
to  the  desert. 

Kabbi  Moses  Haccohen  applies  all  this  to  the  desolation  of  Edom  in  the 
days  of  Isaiah.     Grotius,  who  adopts  the  same  hypothesis,  supposes  these 
judgments  to  have  been  provoked  by  the  aid  which  the  Edomites  afforded 
to  the  Assyrians  in  their  invasion  of  Judea,  and  to  have  been  executed  by 
the  Ethiopians.     Schmidius  also  applies  the  chapter  to  the  hteral  desola- 
tion of  Edom  in  the  days  of  Isaiah.     Eusebius  applies  it  to  the  day  of 
judgment  and  the  end  of  the  world.     Cyril  makes  the  same  application  of 
vers.  1-4,  but  applies   the  rest  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
Jewish  commonwealth  mystically  represented  here  by  Edom.     Theodoret 
extends  this  explanation  to  the  whole,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Cocceius. 
The   rabbinical   interpreters,  with  one  exception  which  has  been  already 
mentioned,  explain  Edom  as  a  mystical  or  figurative  name  for  Rome,  or 
rather  Christendom,   of  which   Rome   was   once    the   representative,    and 
understand  the  chapter  as  predicting  the  future  downfall  of  the  Christian 
powers  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.     On  this  same  rabbinical  hypothesis 
Vitringa  rears  a  Christian  exposition,  by  making  Edom  the  emblem  not  of 
Christian  but  of  antichristinn  (/'.  c.  papal)  Rome.      So  J.  H.   Michatdis, 
Gill,  and  others,  most  of  whom,  however,  give  the  prophecy  a  greater  lati- 
tude of  meaning,  as  a  general  threatening  of  destruction  to  the  enertlies  of 
Zion,  but  especially  to  antichrist  here  typified  as  Edom.     J.  D.  Michaelis 
regards  the  prophecy  as  yet  to  be  fulfilled,  and  thinks  it  possible  thai  the 
ancient  Idiimea  ma}'  hereafter  be  possessed  by  an  antichristian  power  whoso 
destruction  is  here  foretold.     Rosenniiiller  and  the  other  recent  German 
writers  regard  the  whole  ns  an  extr;iva;^ant  expression  of  revengeful  malice 
by  a  writer  long  posterior  to  Isaiah.     This  gratuitous  assumption  is  sus- 
tained by  the  usual  empirical  criticism,  which,  as  we  have  seen  before,  may 
be  employed  on  either  side  of  any  question.     Hitzig,  while  comjtlaining  of 
the  writer's  diffuscnoss  and  verbosity,  heaps  up  tautological  expressions  of 
contempt  in  his  own  peculiar  style.     It  is  worthy  of  remark,  too,  that  the 
spirit  of  this  chapter   is  extremely  shocking  to  Ihefic  pious  unbelievers. 
Leaving  these  prejudiced  interpretations  out  of  view,  the  reference  of  the 
prophecy  to  antichrist  may  bo  objected  to,  upon  the  ground  that  the  sense 


Ver.  1-3.]  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  10 

which  it  gives  to  Edom  is  a  forced  one,  not  sustained  by  any  usage  or 
authority,  except  certain  parts  of  the  book  of  Revelation,  which  the  older 
writers  used  as  a  key  to  tlie  ancient  prophecies,  whereas  these  alone  afford 
the  key  to  it.  The  simplest  and  mos.t  satisfactory  view  of  the  whole  passage 
is  the  one  proposed  by  Calvin,  who  regards  it  as  a  general  threatening  of 
destruction  to  the  enemies  of  Zion,  Edom  being  particularly  mentioned,  as 
an  enemy  of  ancient  Israel,  peculiarly  inveterate  and  malignant,  and  thenco 
used  to  represent  the  whole  class  of  such  enemies.  Thus  understood,  the 
prophecy  extends  both  to  the  past  and  future,  and  includes  many  particular 
events  to  which  interpreters  have  erroneously  endeavoured  to  restrict  it,  not 
excepting  the  destruction  of  antichrist,  as  the  greatest  event  of  this  kind 
which  is  foretold  in  prophecy.     Compare  the  note  on  chap.  xi.  4. 

1.  Come  near,  ye  naiions,  to  hear ;  and  ye  peoples,  hearken.     Lowth  atlds 
to  me,  on  the  authority  of  a  single  manuscript.     Let  the  earth  hear  and  its 

fnhiess  (that  which  fills  it,  all  that  it  contains),  the  world  and  all  its  mwes 
(or  productions,  all  that  comes  forth  from  it).  This  may  either  be  explained 
with  Calvin  as  an  appeal  to  inanimate  nature,  like  the  one  at  the  beginning 
of  the  book  (chap.  i.  2),  or  as  an  appeal  to  men,  poetically  represented  as 
the  fruit  of  the  earth,  which  is  the  sense  given  in  the  ancient  versions  and 
adopted  by  Vitringa.  Knobel  supposes  a  climax  or  anticlimax,  the  Prophet 
first  invoking  men  (nations  and  peoples),  then  brutes  (ihajidaess  of  the  earth), 
and  then  plants  {its  productions).  But  the  sense  thus  put  upon  the  fulness 
of  the  earth  is  altogether  arbitrary.  This  verse  announces,  as  about  to  be 
delivered,  a  prediction  of  great  moment  and  deserving  the  attention  of  the 
whole  world.  Cocceius  understands  by  nations  the  heathen,  and  by  peoples 
the  tribes  of  Israel,  a  distinction  which  he  makes  even  in  the  first  verse  of 
ihe  second  Psalm.     All  other  writers  take  the  words  as  poetical  equivalents. 

2.  This  verse  assigns  the  reason  for  the  invocation  in  the  one  before  it. 
For  {there  is)  anger  to  Jehovah.     The  English  Version  has,  the  inditjnation 
of  the  Ijord  is,  an  idea  which  would  be  otherwise  expressed  in  Hebrew. 
The  construction  is  the  same  as  in  chap.  ii.  12.     Jehov  ih  has  antjcr  (or  is 
anyrij)  against  all  the  nations.     The  common  version  is  npon,  which  is  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  particle,  and  is  appropriate  in  this  case  as  suggest- 
ing the  idea  of  infliction.     That  of  hostility  is  of  course  implied,  even  if  not 
expressed.     Vitringa  needlessly  and  arbitrarily  distinguishes  between  the 
nations  mentioned  in  the  first  verse  and  in  this,  upon  the  ground  that  those 
who  were  to  be  destroyed  would  not  bo  summoned  to  hear  of  their  destruc- 
tion.    But  why  not  ?     It  is  exactly  like  the  case  of  an  individual  convict 
hearing  his  sentence  before  its  execution.     Vitringa  also  makes  D*13  mean 
nations  in  general,  and  QMJn  these  nations,  i.e.  tlie  ones  to  be  destroyed. 
But  QM3n  7D  is  the  strongest  expression  possible  in  Hebrew  for  all  nations. 
And  ivratli  (is  to  Jehovah)  against  all  their  host.     Not  their  armies  in  par- 
ticular, as  Clcricus  suggests,  but  their  whole  multitude,  all  that  belong  to 
them.     (Compare  the  same  expression  in  Gen.  ii.  1.)    He  has  doomed  them, 
or  devoted  them  irrevocably  to  destruction.     For  the  peculiar  usage  of  the 
Hebrew  verb,  see  the  note  on  chap.  xi.  15.     He  has  given,  (/.  e.  appointed 
and  abandoned)  thein  to  the  slaagJiler.     The  past  tense  is  not  a  mere  prce- 
terilum  propheiicum,  implying  the   certainty   of  the   event  although  still 
future,  but  describes  the  divine  determination  or  decree  as  really  and  lite- 
rally past. 

3.  And  their  slain  shall  be  cast  out.  The  Hebrew  word  strictly  means 
tneir  wounded,  and  is  so  translated  in  the  Septuagint  and  some  other  ver- 
sions.    But  usage  gives  it  the  specific  sense  of  uounded  mortally,  and  for 


20  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  |Ver.  4. 

the  most  part  in  battle.  Cast  out,  t.  e.  tmburied.  This  snggests  the  several 
ideas  of  contomptnous  neglect,  of  a  multitude  too  vast  to  be  interred,  and 
perhaps  of  survivors  too  few  to  perform  the  duty,  (Compare  chap.  xiv. 
18-20.)  They  shall  not  lie  unburied  merely  for  a  time,  but  until  they  rot 
upon  the  groimd.  And  (heir  corpses  (or  carcases),  their  stench  shall  go  up. 
The  first  noun  is  construed  as  an  absolute  nominative,  as  to  their  carcases, 
their  stench,  &.C.,  which  is  equivalent  in  our  idiom  to  the  stench  of  their  car- 
cases shall  go  u]i.  With  reference  to  the  same  revolting  circumstance, 
Lncan  calls  a  battle-field  olentes  agros.  (Compare  Amos  iv.  10,  Joel  ii. 
20.)  And  mountains  shall  be  melted  unth  (or  by)  their  blood,  as  they  are 
sometimes  washed  away  by  rains  or  torrents.  This  cannot  mean  merely 
that  blood  shall  nin  down  from  the  hills  (Clericus),  but  must  be  taken  as  a 
strong  poetical  hyperbole  descriptive  of  excessive  carnage. 

4.  And  all  the  haul  of  hen leii  (or  heavenly  bodies)  sh<dl  consume  airai/. 
This  verb  is  commonly  applied  to  the  pining  or  consumption  occasioned  by 
disease.  In  Ps.  xxxviii.  C  it  means  to  run  as  a  sore,  from  which  analogy 
Gesonius  deduces  here  the  sense  of  niclting,  and  adopts  Vitringa's  notion 
that  the  stars  are  poetically  likened  to  wax  cnndlcs.  Maurer,  with  a  better 
taste,  supposes  the  obscuration  of  the  heavenly  bodies  to  be  represented  as 
a  pining  away.  The  ideas  of  sickly  lights  and  dying  lights  are  not  unknown 
to  modern  poetry.  Ami  the  heavens  shall  be  roUeil  up  (or  together)  like  a 
scroll,  i.e.  like  an  ancient  volume  {yolumen  from  volvo),  or  a  modem  map. 
Grotius  explains  this  as  meaning  that  nothing  should  be  seen  in  the  heavens 
any  more  than  a  book  rolled  up  or  closed.  This  idea  Umbreit  carries  out 
by  talking  of  the  sky  as  God's  great  book,  in  which  he  has  written  his 
eternal  name  with  countless  stars.  J.  D.  Michaelis  more  naturally  under- 
stands the  Prophet  as  alluding  to  the  phenomena  of  storms,  in  which  the 
skv  is  first  overcast  and  then  covered  with  clouds,  the  motion  of  which  gives  it 
the  appearance  of  being  rolled  together.  The  best  explanation  seems,  how- 
ever, to  be  that  proposed  by  Pfeifl'er  in  his  l)ubia  Vexata,  to  wit,  that  as 
God  is  elsewhere  described  as  having  stretched  out  the  heavens  like  a  cur- 
tain, their  destruction  or  any  total  change  in  their  appearance  would  be 
naturally  represented  as  a  rolling  up  of  the  expanse.  In  like  manner 
Horace  says,  horrida  tempcstas  contraxit  caelum.  The  Targum  strangely 
makes  12DD  mean  according  to  the  book,  i.  e.  the  Scriptures.  Montanus 
no  less  strangely  makes  it  govern  D'Ot'n  (^siciU  liber  ccrlorum),  a  construc- 
tion utterly  precluded  by  the  article.  ( See  a  similar  mistake  of  Lowth  in 
chap.  xvii.  8.)  Atid  all  their  host  (referring  to  the  heavens)  sJiall  fade  or 
fall  away)  like  the  fading  of  a  Ira/from  a  vine.  This  beautiful  comparison 
with  the  decay  of  plants  makes  it  the  more  probable  that  the  preceding 
clause  alludes  to  that  of  animal  life  and  not  to  the  melting  of  wax  or  tallow. 
And  like  n  fading  (leaf)  or  a  withered  (fg)  from  a  fig-tree.  Kuobel  ex- 
plains 0733  as  a  feminine  collective  put  for  the  plural  masculine,  an  idiom 
of  which  there  are  few  if  any  unambiguous  examples.  As  n?!/  is  masculine, 
the  feminine  adjective  may  bo  referred  to  a  noun  understood.  J.  D. 
Michaelis  imagines  that  this  clause  describes  the  seeming  motit)n  of  the 
stars  occasioned  by  a  nocturnal  earthquake.  Grotius  supposes  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  carnage  to  be  still  continued,  and  the  exhalations  of  the  putrid 
corjises  to  be  here  described  as  veiling  the  heavens  and  producing  those 
meteoric  appearances  called  shooting  stars.  This  extravagant  conceit  is  justly 
condemned  by  Gesenius  as  a  most  infelicitous  conception  of  a  poitic  image, 
and  it  is  certainly  worse  than  his  own  prosaic  supposition  of  wax  candles. 
Such  exhibitions  may  enable  us  to  estimate  correctly  the  aesthetic  contempt 


Ver.  5.]  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  21 

with  which  some  writers  speak  of  this  magnificent  passage  as  plainly  be- 
longing to  a  later  age.  A  similar  remark  may  be  applied  to  ICnobel's  repe- 
tition of  Vitringa's  indiscreet  suggestion  as,  to  the  popular  belief  of  the 
Hebrews  respecting  the  heavens  and  the  heavenly  bodies.  It  would  be  no 
less  rational  to  argue  from  the  foregoing  vei'se,  that  they  believed  in  streams 
of  blood  so  vast  as  to  dissolve  whole  mountains.  If  the  terms  of  that  verse 
are  poetical  hyperboles,  on  what  ground  is  this  to  be  explained  as  a  lesson 
in  natural  philosophy  ?  Another  notion  of  Vitringa's,  equally  unfounded, 
although  not  adopted  by  the  modern  Germans,  is  that  the  terms  of  this 
verse  plainly  shew  that  the  prediction  has  respect  to  some  great  body  politic 
or  organised  society,  the  sun  being  the  emblem  of  the  civil  power,  the  moon 
of  the  ecclesiastical,  and  the  stars  of  distinguished  men  in  Church  and  State. 
The  context  clearly  shews  that  the  tei-ms  used  are  not  sj-mbolical  but  poeti- 
cal, and  that  here,  as  in  chap.  xiii.  10,  the  idea  which  they  are  all  intended 
to  convey  is  that  of  revolution,  of  sudden,  total,  and  appalling  change.  The 
imagery  of  the  passage  has  been  partially  adopted  in  Matt.  xxiv.  29,  and 
Rev.  vi.  13,  neither  of  which,  however,  is  to  be  regarded  either  as  a  repeti- 
tion or  an  explanation  of  the  one  before  us. 

5.  There  is  no  need  of  giving  ''3  the  sense  of  yea  (Augusti),  or  of  explain- 
ing it  asa  mere  connective  particle  (Knobel),  since  it  ma}'  be  construed,  in 
its  proper  sense,  either  with  ver.  3  (Hitzig),  or  with  the  whole  of  the  pre- 
ceding description.  All  this  shall  certainly  take  place, /b/-  7ny  sword  (the 
speaker  being  God  himself)  is  steeped  (saturated,  soaked)  in  heaven.  Most 
versions,  ancient  and  modern,  take  the  verb  here  in  the  same  sense  of  being 
drunk  or  intoxicated,  either  with  wrath  or  with  the  blood  of  enemies.  It  is 
very  improbable,  however,  that  U\o  different  figures  were  intended  here  and 
in  ver.  7,  where  all  agree  that  the  earth  is  described  as  being  soaked  or 
saturated  with  blood.  Koppe  proposes  to  re.id  riL^IID  sharpened,  after  the 
analogy  of  Ezek.  xxi.  33.  The  same  sense  had  long  before  been  put  upon 
the  common  text  by  Clericus,  who  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  wetting  of 
the  grindstone  or  the  blade  in  grinding.  The  Targum  has  revealed,  on  the 
authority  of  which  loose  paraphrase  Lowth  reads  made  bare,  adding  with 
great  naivete  in  his  note,  whatever  readinrf,  different  I  presume  from  the 
present,  he  miyht  Jind  in  his  copy,  I  follow  the  sense  which  he  has  given  of  it. 
This  implies  that  it  is  not  even  necessary  to  know  what  a  reading  is  before 
it  is  allowed  to  supersede  the  common  text.  The  phrase  in  heaven  has  been 
variously  explained.  Some  of  the  older  writers  understand  it  as  express- 
ing the  certainty  of  the  event  (as  fii-m  or  sure  as  the  heavens) ;  others  as  de- 
scriptive of  the  great  men  who  were  to  be  destroyed.  Gill  says  it  may  denote 
the  whole  Roman  papal  jurisdiction,  and  Henderson,  who  rejects  all  allusion 
to  Rome,  explains  it  to  mean  the  Idumean  heaven  or  the  ruling  power  in 
Edom.  Gesenius  supposes  the  sword  to  be  here  described  as  drunk  mth 
wrath  in  heaven  before  it  is  drunk  with  blood  on  earth  ;  Ewald,  as  dropping 
blood  in  heaven  as  if  by  anticipation  {wie  zum  voraus).  The  best  explana- 
tion is  that  of  Calvin,  who  refers  the  expression  to  the  di^^ne  determination 
and  foreknowledge.  In  the  sight  of  God  the  sword,  although  not  yet  actually 
used,  was  already  dripping  blood.  The  sword  is  mentioned,  neither  because 
commonly  employed  in  executions  (Barnes),  nor  in  the  sense  of  a  butcher's 
knife  (Vitringa),  but  as  a  natural  and  common  though  poetical  expression 
for  any  instrument  of  vengeance.  Knobel  is  singular  in  understanding  this 
clause  as  referring  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Babylonians,  aheady  past,  and 
now  to  be  succeeded  by  that  of  the  Edomites.  Behold,  upon  Edom  it  shall 
come  down.    Some  translate  the  future  as  a  present,  but  there  is  no  sufiicient 


22  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  [Veb.  G,  7. 

reason  for  departing  from  the  proper  sense.  The  Jewish  tradition  is  ihat 
Edom  in  the  prophecies  means  Ilomc.  For  Ihis  opinion  Abarbenel  eiuloa- 
Tours  to  eccurc  a  historical  foundation,  by  making  the  Romans  actual 
descendants  of  Esau.  Vitringa  justly  denounces  this  as  egregious  trifling, 
but  adopts  the  same  hypothesis,  only  applying  the  name  to  Pagan  and  Papal 
llome.  At  the  same  time,  he  appears  unwilling  to  abandon  altogelher  its 
application  to  the  Jews  themselves.  Now  the  only  thing  common  to  these 
three  distinct  subjects  is  their  malignant  hatred  of  God's  people.  This  may 
servo,  therefore,  to  confirm  Calvin's  doctrine,  that  the  name  is  here  applied 
to  the  inveterate  enemies  of  the  church  at  large,  and  nut  to  any  one  of 
them  exclusively.  Hendertion,  in  avoiding  Vitringa's  error,  goes  to  the 
opposite  extreme  of  confining  the  prediction  to  the  literal  and  ancient 
Edom.  Even  the  German  critics  grant  that  Edom  is  here  mentioned  as  a 
representative.  The  same  thing  is  clear  from  the  whole  complexion  of  this 
prophecy  and  from  the  analogy  of  others  hke  it.  The  strength  of  the  ex- 
pressions cannot  be  explained  by  the  gratuitous  assertion  that  it  was  merely 
adeqtuite  to  meet  the  expectations  of  a  jMitriotic  Jeiv  in  reference  to  the  in- 
Jlicticn  of  divine  judgment  on  those  tvho  had  been  the  ancient  and  7nost  in- 
veterate enemies  of  his  country.  On  the  other  hand,  they  are  sufficiently 
accounted  for,  by  the  supposition  that  the  passage  is  a  prediction  of  the 
downfall  not  of  Edom  only,  but  of  others  like  him.  The  fulfilment  of  these 
threatcnings  cannot  be  traced  in  the  history  of  ancient  Edom.  They  ceased 
to  be  a  people,  not  by  extii"pation,  but  by  incorporation  with  the  Jews.  The 
came  IJnmea,  as  employed  by  Josephus,  includes  a  large  part  of  Judea. 
The  Herods,  the  last  royal  family  of  Judah,  were  of  Idumean  origin.  And 
vpon  the  people  of  my  curse  or  doom,  i.  e.  the  people  whom  I  have  doomed 
to  destruction  (see  ver.  2).  This  is  not  an  extension  of  the  threatening 
against  Edom  to  other  nations  (Junius),  but  a  repetition  of  it  in  a  ditl'ereut 
form.  CDtw  is  not  an  advcrbinl  phrase  meaning  j».vf///,  but  a  declaration 
of  the  end  for  which  the  sword  was  to  come  down,  \iz.  for  jud/finait,  i.  e.  to 
execute  justice  upon  Edom. 

G.  A  suord  [is)  to  Jihnrah  (or  Jehovah  has  a  suotd)  ;  it  is  full  of  blood. 
The  genitive  construction  [the  snord  of  Jehovah),  although  not  ungram- 
matical,  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity.  It  is  smeared  vith  fat. 
The  allusion  is  not  to  the  fatty  part  of  the  blood  or  to  the  fat  combined  with 
it  (Gesenius),  but  to  fat  and  blood  as  the  animal  substances  offered  in 
sacrifice.  With  the  blood  of  lambs  and  rjoats,  mentioned  as  well-known 
sacrificial  animals,  vith  the  fat  of  the  kidneys  (or  the  kidney  fat)  of  ranis, 
mentioned  either  ns  remarkable  for  fatness  or  as  a  parallel  expression  to  the 
foregoing  clause.  Vor  there  is  to  Jihorah  (or  Jehovah  has)  a  sacrifice  in 
Bozrah,  and  a  yrcat  slaughter  in  the  land  of  Edom.  n2T  is  otherwise  ex- 
plained to  mean  a  victim  (Vulgate),  or  the  preparation  for  a  feast  (Cocceius). 
Bozriih  was  an  ancient  city  of  Edom.  Gesenius  in  his  Commentiiry 
identifies  it  with  IJostra  in  Auranitis ;  but  in  his  Thesaurus  he  agrees  with 
Raumer  and  Hit/ig  in  milking  it  the  same  with  the  modern  I>usairch,  a 
village  and  castle  in  Arabia  Petrjca,  south-east  of  the  Dead  Sea  (see  Robin- 
son's Palestine,  ii.  p.  r)70).  Cocceius  thinks  Jerusalem  is  hero  called 
Bozrah  as  being  a  stronyhold  of  thieves  and  robbers.  Vitringa  applies  it  to 
Rome,  which  he  derives  from  HOI,  hiyh.  Hitzig  applies  this  verso  to  the 
literal  slaughter  of  the  Edomitish  flocks  and  herds,  which  seems  iuconsis- 
tfCnt  with  the  next  verse. 

7.  And  unicorns  shall  come  doun  xoith  them,  and  huUochs  with  bulls. 
And  their  land  shall  be  soaked  (or  drenc/ied)  with  blood,  and  their  dust  with 


Ver.  8,  9.]  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  23 

fat  shrill  be  fattened.  The  ancient  versions,  with  great  unanimity  and  uni- 
formity, explain  D^<">  as  meaning  the  unicorn.  This  animal  has  been 
commonly  regarded  as  fabulous  in  modern  times  ;  but  of  late  some  traces  of 
it  have  been  found  in  Thibet  and  other  parts  of  Asia.  But  even  supposing 
it  to  be  a  real  animal,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  ever  common 
in  the  Holy  Land,  as  the  2^1  would  seem  to  have  been  from  the  fi-equency 
with  which  it  is  mentioned.  The  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  word  by 
Aqnila  and  Saadias,  as  meaning  the  rhinoceros,  may  be  considered  as  ex- 
ploded by  Bochart.  The  modern  writers  are  divided  between  a  certain 
species  of  gazelle  or  antelope,  and  the  wild  buftalo  of  Palestine  and  Egypt. 
The  name  ma}'  here  be  used  either  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  ox,  or 
to  suggest  that  wild  as  well  as  tame  beasts  should  be  included  in  the 
threatened  slaughter.  Some  understand  the  term  as  denoting  potent  and 
malignant  enemies.  Grotius  gives  a  distinctive  meaning  also  to  the  species 
mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse,  the  lambs  being  the  common  people,  the 
goats  the  priests,  and  the  fat  rams  the  men  of  wealth.  This  mode  of  ex- 
position is  at  variance  with  the  very  nature  of  figurative  language.  For 
D\'^N"1  in  this  verse  some  of  the  old  Jews  read  DVOn,  Romans.  Dust  here 
denotes  drij  soil,  which  is  said  to  be  enriched  by  the  bodies  of  the  slain. 
So  Virgil  says  that  Roman  blood  had  twice  enriched  the  soil  of  Macedonia. 
The  ji eld  of  Waterloo  (says  Barnes)  has  thus  been  celebrated,  since  the  great 
battle  there,  for  jiwducinj  rank  and  luxuriant  harvests.  To  come  down  in 
the  first  clause  is  b}'  some  explained  as  meaning  to  come  down  to  the 
slaughter  (Jer.  1.  27,  li.  40) ;  by  others  to  fall  or  sink  under  the  fatal 
stroke  (Zech.  xi.  2). 

8.  For  {there  is)  a  day  of  vengeance  to  Jehovah,  a  year  of  recompences  for 
the  cause  of  Zion,  i.  e.  to  maintain  her  cause.  Some  have  taken  tliis  in  an 
unfavourable  sense  as  meaning  to  contend  ivith  Zion.  Cocceius  and  Umbreit 
regard  day  and  year  as  a  chmax,  but  most  writers  as  equivalent  indefinite 
expressions.  This  verse  connects  the  judgments  threatened  against  Edom 
with  the  cause  of  Zion  or  the  church  of  God,  On  the  construction  and 
the  meaning  of  the  first  words  of  the  sentence,  compare  chap.  ii.  12. 

9.  And  her  streams  (those  of  Idumea  or  the  land  of  Edom)  shall  be 
turned  to  pitch,  and  her  dust  to  brimstone,  and  her  land  shall  become  burning 
pitch.  This  verse,  as  Calvin  well  observes,  announces  nothing  new,  but 
repeats  the  same  prediction  under  other  figures,  borrowed  from  the  over- 
throw of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  which  throughout  the  Bible  are  set  forth 
for  an  examph,  suffering  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire  (Jude  7).  To  the 
fire  and  brimstone  there  mentioned,  pitch  or  bitumen  is  added,  as  Hende- 
werk  and  Knobel  suppose,  because  the  soil  of  Idumea,  lying  adjacent  to 
the  Dead  Sea,  is  bituminous,  and  abounds  in  veins  or  springs  of  naphtha. 
According  to  Sanctius,  pitch  is  mentioned  as  a  substance  easily  kindled 
and  burning  long.  H^TTIJ  neither  means  her  valleys  (Septuagint)  nor  her 
torrents  (Lowth),  but  her  streams  in  general,  as  distinguished  from  her 
dust  or  dry  ground,  both  being  included  in  the  general  term  land  which 
occurs  in  the  last  clause  (Hitzig).  According  to  Knobel,  the  suffix  in  nV"iS 
still  refers  to  Idumea,  and  the  noun  means  surface.  Grotius  applies  this 
description  to  the  burning  of  the  Idumean  cities.  Clericus  explains  the 
first  clause  as  meaning  that  their  streams  should  be  as  turbid  as  if  turned 
to  pitch.  Barnes  correctly  understands  it  as  expressing  in  the  strongest 
terms  the  idea  oi  utter  and  permanent  destruction,  as  complete  and  terrible 
as  ?/'the  streams  were  turned  to  pitch.  The  old  editions  of  the  Chaldeo 
Paraphrase  read  here  the  streams  of  Rome,  &c.     According  to  the  Talmud, 


24  ISAIAH  XXXIW  [Ver.  10. 

Rome  was  founded  on  the  diw  that  Jeroboam  set  np  the  golden  calf,  and 
is  to  be  destroyed  like  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  Upon  this  tradition  (which 
is  given  at  length  in  liuxtorf  s  Talmudical  Lexicon  under  the  word  KOH) 
Gill  seizes  with  avidity,  so  far  as  it  is  suited  to  his  pur])ose,  and  appHes  it 
to  the  future  destruction  of  Rome  by  lire,  as  predicted  in  Rev.  xvii.  16, 
xviii.  8.  Vitringa  also  thinks  it  not  impossible  that  even  this  verso  may 
be  literally  verified  in  the  sulphureous  soil  of  Latium  and  Campania.  He 
seems  indeed  to  have  regarded  it  as  an  evi-ut  likely  to  happen  in  his  own 
day,  and  cites  \v'ith  great  solemnity  the  similar  anticipations  of  Jerome 
Savonarola,  as  recorded  by  Philip  de  Comines,  and  the  prophecy  found, 
according  to  Matthew  of  Paris,  in  the  bed-room  of  Gregory  IX.  So  Httlo 
docs  the  failure  of  these  earlier  forebodings  appear  to  have  taught  him 
their  groundle.ss  and  unprofitable  nature  !  At  the  same  time  he  appears 
to  allow  ample  space  for  the  fulfilment  by  referring  to  the  great  fire  under 
Nero  as  a  prelude  to  the  Ihial  conflagration. 

10.   Day  ami  iiii/)it  it  shall  tiul  be  ijiiciiched  ;  for  ever  shall  its  smoke  go 
up ;  from  ijene ration  to  (jeneration  shall  it  lie  waste;  for  ever  and  ever  there 
shall  he  no  one passintj  throwjh  it.     The  remarkable  gradation  and  accumu- 
lation of  terms  denoting  perpetuity  can  scarcely  be  expressed  in  a  trans- 
lation.    This  is  especially  the  case  with  the  last  and  highest  of  the  series, 
which  Lowth  renders  to  everlasthuj  ages,  and  Henderson  to  all  perj>etuity, 
neither  of  which  is  stronger  than  the  common  version  for  ever  and  every 
or  approaches  much  nearer  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  Hebrew  phrase,  to 
perpetuity  of  perjietuities.     The  original  form   of  expression,   though   not 
the    exact    sense    of  the   words,   is   retained    by   Theodotion,   u;   Uyjxra 
iayjiTuv.     Grotius's  characteristic  explanation  is  in  these  words  :  id  est, 
dill.     Lowth's  disposition  to  improve  the  common  version  by  substituting 
Latin  for  Saxon  words  is  exemplified  in  this  verse,  where  he  changes  uaste 
and  ifuencheU  into  desert  and  extinguished.     Grotius  supposes  an  allusion 
to  the  long-continued  smoking  of  i)unit  cities,  and  quotts  parallels  from 
Virgil  and  Seneca.     A  much  more  .striking  paralh  1  is  found  in  the  state- 
ment (Gen.   xix.   28),  that  when  Abraham  looked   toward   Sodom   and 
Gomorrah,  (he  smoke  of  the  country  loent  up  as  the  smoke  of  a  furnace. 
These  sublime  and  fearful  images  are  copied  in  the  book  of  Revelation 
(xiv.  10,  11),  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  copy,  though  inspired  and 
prophetic,  was  intended  to  determine  the  sense  of  the  original.     li<isen- 
miiller  and  Ivnobel  understand  the  last  words  as  meaning  that  no  one  shall 
goto  it  or  pass  into  it,  but  Gesenius  and  Ewald  with  the  older  writers,  that 
no  one  shall  pass  through  or  over  it,  implying  that  it  shall  not  be  a  tho- 
roughfure   for  caravans   or  single   travellers.     Keith,  in   his   Evidence   of 
Proi)hecy,  h.is  collected  some  remarkable  illustrations  of  this  passage  from 
the  incidental  statements  of  modern  travellers,  with  respect  to  what  was 
once  the  land   of  Kdom.     Thus  Volney  speaks  of  thirty  deserted  towns 
within  three  days'  journey  ;  Seet/.en,  of  a  wide  tract  utterly  without  a  place 
of  habiUition,  and  of  his  own  route  through  it  as  one  never  before  attempted  ; 
Burekhardt,  of  the  passage  as  declared  by  the  people  of  the  nearest  inha- 
bited districts  to  be  inipos.sible,  in  accordance  with  which  notion  he  was 
unable  to  procure  guides  at  any  price.     These  are  striking  coincidences, 
and  a«  illustrations  of  the  prophecy  important,  but  are  not  to  bo  insisted 
on  as  constituting  its  direct  fulfilment,  for  in  that  case  the  passage  of  these 
▼or}-   travellers   through  the    country  would  falsify  the   prediction   which 
they  are  cited   to  confirm.     The  truth  of  the  prophecy  in  this  clause  is 
really  no  more  suspended  on  such  facts,  than  that  of  the  first  clause  and 


Ver.  ll.J  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  25 

of  the  preceding  verse  upon  the  actual  existence  of  bituminous  streams  and 
a  sulphureous  soil  throughout  the  ancient  Idumea.  The  whole  is  a  magni- 
ficent prophetic  picture,  the  fidelity  of  which,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  ancient 
Edom,  is  notoriously  attested  by  its  desolation  for  a  course  of  ages.  In 
this  verse  Hitzig  represents  the  writer  as  attaining  his  highest  point  of 
bitterness  against  the  Edomites  ;  and  Knobel,  in  a  kindred  spirit,  says  that 
the  repeated  threatening  of  perpetual  desolation,  while  it  makes  the  predic- 
tion more  impressive,  shews  gi*eat  spite  {verriith  t/rossen  //rtss-),  an  expres- 
sion far  more  applicable  to  the  comment  than  the  text,  which  is  as  little 
open  to  the  charge  of  malice  as  the  sentence  which  a  judge  pronounces  on 
a  convict. 

11.  llien  shall  possess  it  (as  a  heritage)  the  j)elican  and  porcupine,  the 
crane  and  crow  shall  dwell  in  it.  And  he  (or  one)  shall  stretch  upon  it  the 
line  of  confusion  and  the  stones  of  emptiness.  Having  declared  that  man 
should  no  longer  pass  through  it,  he  now  explains  who  shall  be  its  inhabi- 
tants. The  first  verb  is  rendered  by  Cocceius  shall  inherit ;  by  Junius 
still  more  fully,  shall  possess  by  hereditary  right ;  but  by  Gesenius  and 
most  later  writers,  sliall  possess,  which,  though  correct,  is  scarcely  adequate, 
as  the  original  word  could  not  fail  to  suggest  to  a  Hebrew  reader  the  idea 
of  succession.  These  animals  should  not  only  occupy  the  land,  l)ut  occupy 
it  as  the  successors  and  to  the  exclusion  of  mankind.  The  riNp  is  no  doubt 
the  pelican,  as  the  et}Tnology  of  the  name  (from  i<"lp,  to  vomit)  agrees  with 
the  habits  of  that  bird,  and  the  ancient  versions  to  explain  it.  In  this 
place,  it  is  true,  the  Septuagint  has  not  rrchsxav,  as  Henderson  quotes  it,  but 
the  general  term  osvia,  and  the  Vulgate  not  pellica mix  but  onocrotalus.  The 
next  word  has  been  translated  oiul  (Calvin),  and  bittern  (English  Version), 
but  is  now  agi'ced  to  mean  the  porcupine  or  hedgehog,  as  explained  in  the 
Septuagint  (fp^/vo/).  The  next  word  is  now  understood  to  denote,  not  an 
owl  (Bochart),  but  a  heron  or  crane  ;  according  to  the  Septuagint,  the  ibis 
or  Egyptian  heron.  The  essential  idea,  as  Calvin  observes,  is  that  of  wild 
and  solitary  animals.  (Compare  chap.  xiii.  21,  22;  xiv.  23,  Rev.  xviii.  2.) 
Here  again  a  remarkable  coincidence  fs  furnished  by  the  statements  of 
travellei-3  mth  respect  to  the  number  of  wild  birds  in  Edom.  Mangles, 
while  at  Petra,  describes  the  screaming  of  the  eagles,  hawks,  and  owls, 
seemingly  annoyed  at  any  one  approaching  their  lonely  habitation.  Burck- 
hardt  speaks  of  Tafyle  as  frequented  by  an  immense  number  of  crows,  and 
of  the  birds  called  kattK,  which  fly  in  such  large  flocks  that  the  boys  often 
kill  two  or  three  at  a  time  merely  by  throwing  a  stick  among  them.  In 
this  last  case  the  coincidence  is  verbal  also,  as  the  hrtia  bears  a  strong 
resemblance  to  the  HNp.  The  apparent  inconsistency  between  this  clause 
and  the  description  of  the  country  in  the  verse  before  it  only  shews  that 
neither  can  be  strictly  taken,  but  that  both  are  metaphorical  predictions  of 
entire  desolation.  In  the  next  clause  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  an 
entire  change  of  figure.  The  verb  may  be  construed  either  with  Jchornh 
understood  (Kimchi),  or  indefinitely,  as  by  Junius  [quisquis  conabitur), 
and  Augusti  (manzieht),  which  is  really  equivalent  to  the  passive  form 
adopted  in  the  Vulgate  {f.rtm'lrtur).  In  the  use  of  the  words  1!^^  imd  1^3, 
there  may  be  a  distinct  allusion  to  Gen.  i.  2,  as  there  is  in  Jer.  iv.  23. 
The  line  meant  is  a  measuring  line,  mentioned  elsewhere  not  only  in  con- 
nection with  building  (Zech.  i.  10),  but  also  with  destroying  (2  Kings 
xxi.  13).  The  stofws  meant  are  not  the  black  flints  with  which  the  soil 
of  hncient  Edom  is  profusely  covered  (Burckhardt),  but  stones  used  for 
weights  (Deut.  xxv.  13,  Prov.  xvi.   11),  and  hovo  ior  plumb-line  or  plu7n- 


26  ISAIAH  .YA'AVr.  [Vee.  12. 

met.  This  sense,  which  is  given  in  the  Vulgate  (perpcndiculum),  is  re- 
quired by  the  parallelism,  and  assumed  by  all  interpreters.  The  same 
figure  is  employed  by  (Amos  vii.  7-9)  to  denote  a  moral  test  or  standard, 
but  in  this  case  as  a  symbol  of  destruction.  The  plummet  is  here  men- 
tioned, not  because  actually  used  in  the  taking  down  of  buildings  (Hen- 
derson), but  as  a  parallel  to  line  (Hitzig),  both  together  expressing  the 
idea  of  exact  and  careful  measurement.  The  sense  of  the  whole  metaphor 
may  then  le  either  that  God  has  laid  this  work  out  for  himself  und  will 
perform  it  (Barnes),  or  that  in  destroying  Edom  he  will  act  with  equity 
and  justice  (Gill),  or  that  even  in  destroying  he  will  proceed  deliberately 
and  by  rule  (Knobel),  which  last  sense  is  well  expressed  in  Roscnmiiller's 
paraphrase  {ad  maisuram  laslabilur,  ad  rcfjidavi  depoptthibittir).  Ewald 
Beems  to  understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  the  land  should  be  meted 
out  to  new  inhabitants,  bnt  that  these  should  be  only  Waste  and  Chaos. 
Calvin  and  others  make  it  mean  that  all  attempts  at  restoration  should 
be  vain  ;  the  line  and  plummet  of  the  builder  should  only  serve  as  mea- 
sures of  desolation.  According  to  Clericus,  the  sense  is  that  there  should 
be  nothing  to  prevent  one  from  measuring  the  ruins.  The  Septuagint 
curiously  assimilates  the  clauses  by  translating  this  :  Ass-centaurs  shall 
inhabit  it. 

12.   Hi'r  cares  and  there  is  no  one  thttr  (/.  e.  her  uninhabited  or  empty 
caves)  they  uill  (,s/j//)  call  a  hiutjdom,  and  all  her  chiefs  uill  be  cessation 
{i.  e.  cease  to  be).     Lowth  reads  nmna  or  n^Tin  7V,  connects  it  with  the 
preceding  verse  (for  which  division  of  the  text  he  cites  the  authority  of 
the  Ptshito),  and  translates  the  last  words   of  that  verse  as   follows  : — 
And  the  plummet  of  emptiness  over  her  scorched  plains.     Snch  a  sense  is 
dearly  purchased  by  an  arbitrary  change  of  text,  and  the  introduction  of 
a  word  of  rare  occurrence,  not  to  say  of  doubtful  meaning.      Not  content 
with  this,  however,  he  reads  DP'  for  Dl^',  gives  N~|5  the  sense  which  ho 
says  it  has  in  Prov.  xx.  0,  and  translates  the  first  clause.  No  more  shall 
they  boast  the  rcnoivn  of  the  kimjdom  !     Most  other  writere  take  C'v'^  in  the 
sense  given  to  it  by  the  Septuagint  (aej^oirj;),  and  Vulgate  {nobiles).    Mon- 
tanus  renders  it  hei'oea.      Gescnius  retains  the  common   meaning,    but 
derives  it  (on  the  strength  of  an  Arabic  analog^')  from  the  primary  idea 
of  free-born.       It  is  also  commonly  agreed  since  Vitringa,  that  this  first 
word  should  be  construed  as  a  nominative  absolute  {as  to  her  nobles),  and 
the  first  verb  as  indefinite.     That  verb  has  been  variously  explained  hero 
as  meaning  to  snij  (Augusti),  to  cnj  (French  Version),  to  lament  (Castalio), 
to  prnjwse  (De  Dieu),  to  tj«»jc  (Forerius),  to  recall  (Grotius),  to  proclaim 
(Cocceius),  and  to  call  in  the  sense  of  nominating  or  appointing  (Vatablus). 
No  less  various  are  the  senses  put  upon  the  whole  clause,  among  which, 
however,  three  may  be  pariicularly  mentioned.     According  to  the  first,  it 
means  that  there  sliall  le  none  to  proclaim  the  kingdom  (Kwald),  or  to  call 
a  king  (Munster).     Acconling  to  the  second,  it  means  that  there  shall  bo 
no  kingdom.     This  idea  is  variously  expressed  and  combined,  so  as  to 
mean  that  their  princes  will  be  princes  w.thout  land  (Luther),  or  that  tliey 
will  lament  for  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  (Castaliii),  or  will  cry  that  it 
ig  at  an  end  (French  Version),  or  will  call  for  its  restoration  (Do  I)ieu);  to 
which  may  be  added  Augusti's  explanation,  that  men  will  say  of  her  princes, 
They  have  no  kingdom  !  and  Grotius's,  that  they  will  call  to  mind  {memo- 
ria  ncolent)  their  ancient  royal  race  now  extinct,  in  favour  of  which  be 
appeals  to  the  Targnm,  which  is  hero  of  very  doubtful  meaning.     A  third 
sense,  preferred  by  most  of  the  late  writers,  is  tliat  there  thall  be  no  ono 


Yer.  13.]  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  27 

whom  they  can  call  to  the  kingdom.  The  same  elliptical  construction  is 
supposed  to  occur  in  Dent,  xxxiii,  19.  This  great  variety  of  explanations, 
and  the  harshness  of  construction  with  which  most  of  them  are  chargeable, 
may  serve  as  an  excuse  for  the  suggestion  of  a  new  one,  not  as  certainly 
correct,  but  as  possibly  entitled  to  consideration.  All  the  interpretations 
which  have  been  cited  coincide  in  giving  to  C^H  the  sense  of  nobles,  which 
it  certainly  has  in  several  places.  (See  1  Kings  xxi.  8,  11  ;  Neh.  ii.  16, 
iv.  13.)  But  in  several  othei's,  it  no  less  certainly  means  holes  or  cuves. 
(See  1  Sam.  xiv.  11,  Job  xxx.  6,  Nahum  ii.  13.)  Now  it  is  matter  of  his- 
tory not  only  that  Edom  was  full  of  caverns,  but  that  these  were  inha- 
bited, and  that  the  aboriginal  inhabitants,  expelled  by  Esau,  were  ex- 
pressly called  Horites  (Q*"?n),  as  being  troglodytes  or  inhabitants  of 
caverns  (Gen.  xiv.  6,  xxxvi.  20,  Deut.  ii.  12,  22).  This  being  the  case, 
the  entire  depopulation  of  the  country,  and  especially  the  destruction 
of  its  princes,  might  bo  naturally  and  poetically  expressed  by  saying  that 
the  kingdom  of  Edom  should  be  thenceforth  a  kingdom  of  deserted  caverns. 
How  appropriate  such  a  description  would  be  to  the  actual  condition  of  the 
country,  and  particnl.trly  to  its  ancient  capital,  may  be  seen  from  Robinson's 
account  of  Petra  (Palestine,  ii.  pp.  51-1-537).  The  supposed  parallelism 
between  n^"in  and  rT'TiJ',  which  Henderson  urges  against  Lowth's  absurd 
emendation  of  the  text,  can  have  little  weight  in  a  case  where  the  construc- 
tion is  at  best  so  difficult.  It  is  proper  to  add  that  this  interpretation  was 
suggested  by  the  allusion  to  the  Horites  which  Hendewerk  assumes,  although 
he  gives  Cl^"in  the  sense  of  nobles  with  the  great  mass  of  interpreters. 
Gesenius  infers  from  his  own  interpretation  of  this  clause,  that  the  kingdom 
of  Edom  was  elective,  and  Hitzig  adds  that  they  sometimes  called  a  king 
from  foreign  parts,  of  which  he  finds  an  instance  in  Gen.  xxxv.  37;  but 
Hendewerk  objects  that,  on  the  same  grounds,  Isaiah  iii.  6,  7,  would  prove 
Judah  to  have  been  an  elective  monarchy.  Gill  of  course  applies  this  verse 
to  the  Idngdom  of  the  beast  (Rev.  xvi.  10),  and  n''T,i'  to  the  cardinals. 

13.  And  her  palaces  (or  in  her  palaces)  shall  come  up  thoi-ns,  nettles, 
and  brambles  in  her  fortresses.  The  natural  consequence  of  her  depopula- 
tion. Here,  as  in  chap,  v,  6,  Cocceius  and  Ewald  construe  the  verb 
with  the  noun  of  place  [increscent  spinis) ;  but  Gosenius,  who  adopts  the 
same  construction  in  the  other  case,  rejects  it  here,  where  it  is  much  more 
natural,  as  it  precludes  the  necessity  of  supplying  a  preposition.  In  the 
next  clause,  Ewald  supplies  are  ;  but  the  preposition  before  fortresses  makes 
the  other  construction  the  more  probable.  Grotius  quotes  a  beautiful 
parallel  from  Virgil.  Carduus  et  spiiiii  surgit  paliurus  acutis.  The  word 
jmliurits  is  itself  used  in  the  Vulgate  version  of  this  sentence.  In  nnV303 
Gill  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  name  Bozrah.  Grotius  explains  the  phrase 
to  mean  within  the  limits  of  her  ancient  walls.  The  situation  here  described 
would  of  course  be  the  resort  of  wild  and  solitary  animals.  And  she  shall 
be  a  home  of  wolves.  The  Septuagint  has  sirens  and  the  Vulgate  dragons, 
which  is  retained  in  most  of  the  old  versions.  Gill,  who  refers  it  all  to 
Rome  directly,  understands  this  to  mean  that  as  she  had  been  the  abode  of 
figurative  dragons,  /.  e.  of  the  old  dragon,  the  devil  and  the  beast,  with  their 
creatures,  popes  and  cardinals,  so  now  she  shall  be  occupied  by  literal 
dragons,  i.e.  monsters  of  the  wilderness.  Gesenius  and  Ewald  render  D*3n 
jackals,  but  Henderson's  version,  wolves,  is  more" expressive,  and  the  exact 
species  meant  is  both  dubious  and  unimportant.  A  court  (or  grass-plot) 
for  ostriches.  Gesenius  explains  TVn  as  an  orthographical  variation  for 
"lyn,  a  court  or  enclosure.     Hitzig  takes  it  in  its  usual  sense  of  grass.     In 


28  ISAlAll  XXXIV.  [Vkb.  14. 

like  manner  it  had  been  explained  as  meaning  grass  or  pasture  long  before 
by  Luther  (Ilei't/e)  and  Cocccius  (</r</7>»pn).  The  general  sense,  in  either 
case,  is  that  of  an  enclosed  and  appropriated  spot,  a  play-ground  or  a  dwell- 
ing-place. The  last  place  is  rendered  by  Augusti,  (latit/htem  of  lioirling. 
It  is  now  understood  to  mean,  not  owls,  but  female  ostriches.  (See  the 
note  on  chap.  xiii.  21.) 

14.  And  wild  (or  desert)  cteature-t  shall  (there)  meet  ivi  h  hovlhuj  crea- 
tures. The  verb  sometimes  means  to  meet  or  encounter  in  the  sense  of 
attacking  (Exodus  iv.  21 ;  Ilosea  xiii.  8'  ;  but  here  it  seems  to  have  the 
general  sense  of  falling  in  with.  These  lonely  creatures,  as  they  traverse 
Idumea,  shall  encounter  none  but  creatures  hke  themselves.  Gesenius  and 
Ewald  follow  Bochart  in  explaining  D'*V  to  mean  irt7</  cats.  Lowth  has 
jmkah.  Most  other  writers,  with  greater  probability,  take  it  in  the  general 
sense  of  those  inhabiting  the  wilderness.  (Compare  the  note  on  chip.  xiii. 
21.)  In  hke  manner,  D"X  may  be  understood,  according  to  its  et\7iiolog)', 
as  signifying  howlers,  i.  v.  howling  animals.  This  is  less  arbitrary', 
and  at  the  same  time  better  suited  to  the  context,  than  the  explanation  of 
the  words  as  names  of  particular  species.  The  principal  specific  meanings 
put  upon  D"X  are  those  of  vultures  (Luther),  thoes  *  (Bochart),  mountain 
cats  (Lowth),  wild  cats  ^Grotius),  wild  do^-s  (Gesenius),  and  wolves  (Kwald). 
Hendewerk  prefers  the  more  general  meaning,  leasts  of  jvcij  (lUiubthiere), 
for  which  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  ground  in  etymologv'.  Augusti 
retains  both  Hebrew  words  [Ziliim  and  Ijini.)  Castaho  has  Sijhani  and 
Faunis.  Next  to  the  explanation  first  proposed,  the  most  probable  is  that 
given  by  Cocceius  and  the  English  Vei-sion,  iri7</  beasts  of  the  desert  and 
wild  leasts  of  the  island.  The  antithesis  might  then  be,  that  between  the 
animals  inhabiting  dry  places  and  those  frequenting  marshes  or  the  banks 
of  streams  (according  to  the  wide  sense  of  the  Hebrew  'N,  explained  in  the 
note  on  chap.  xx.  (5),  implying  either  the  existence  of  such  spots  in  Idumea, 
or  that  the  whole  description  is  to  be  tropically  understood.  By  the  wild 
beasts  of  the  desert,  Cocceius  understands  the  Saracens  and  Turks,  and  by 
the  wild  beasts  of  the  island  the  Crusaders.  In  the  words  2"^*  and  0"H 
there  is  a  paronomasia  but  not  a  jnin  (Barnes).  A  pun  is  the  use  of  one 
word  in  two  senses.  A  paronomasia  is  the  likeness  of  two  ditferent  words 
in  form  or  sound.  And  the  shuijgy  monster  shall  call  to  hia  fellow.  Hitzig 
and  Ewald  give  ^<1p'  the  sense  of  meeting,  as  a  parallel  to  M^i^,  and  sup- 
pose the  Kal  to  be  here  construed  as  the  Nijihal  is  in  Exodus  iii.  18.  But 
as  the  Kal  itself  never  means  to  meet,  excepting  in  a  figurative  application, 
and  as  the  other  explanation  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense,  and  adds  variety 
to  the  description,  it  is  betti-r  to  explain  it  as  most  writers  have  done  since 
the  Si'ptuagint  Version  (3&>;To>ra/).  For  the  true  sense  of  I'l-'w',  see  the 
extended  comment  on  the  plural  form  as  it  occurs  in  chap.  xiii.  21.  Ewald, 
who  has  satyrs,  (lierc,  has  hegaat  in  the  case  before  us;  and  Hen- 
derson, who  has  wild  goats  there,  has  here  Oie  shaggy  he-goal.  Other 
writers  still  give  the  word,  as  in  the  former  case,  the  sense  of  a  hirciform 
spectre  (liocharl),  field-spirit  .\ugusti),  field-devil  (Luther),  wood-devil 
(J.  I).  Michaelis  and  Gesenius),  and  the  Dutch  Version  makes  it  llatly  mean 
de  liuyvel.  Amidst  these  various  and  fanciful  interjiretations,  the  most  con- 
sistent with  itself  and  with  the  etymology  is  still  that  of  the  Vulgate  (;»i7o- 
su.\.  This  is  preferable  even  to  that  given  by  Henderson  and  Ewald,  on 
the  ground  that  it  corn'sponds  better  with  the  general  descriptive  meaning, 
'which,  as  wo  have  seen  above,  most  probably  belongs  to  the  words  D*'V  and 

•   Ur  Juckals. 


Ver.  14. J  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  29 

Q^^K  in  the  preceding  clause.  If  that  clause  speaks  of  wild  and  howling 
beasts,  and  not  of  any  one  class  exclusively,  it  is  more  natural  that  this 
should  speak  of  shaj^gj'  monsters  generally  than  of  goats.  Hendewerk's 
conjecture  that  the  Prophet  here  alludes  to  mount  Seir  ("''yti']  is  not  so 
felicitous  as  that  respecting  the  allusion  to  the  Horites  in  ver.  12.  Only  there 
reposes  the  iiiyht-uionster,  and  finds  for  lierself  a  resting-place.  "|X,  which 
the  older  writers  render  qniniino  (Vitringa),  rerte  (Coccoius),  kc,  properly 
a  particle  of  limitation  meaning  only.  The  latest  writers  connect  it  with  D!^ 
as  meaning  onhf  theie  (Gesenius),  or  with  the  verb  as  meaning  onhj  rest 
(De  Wette),  or  with  ^vy  as  meaning  noniui  spectra  nncturna  (Maurer). 
The  word  Hvv,  which  occurs  only  here,  has  experienced  very  much  the 
same  fate  with  yV'^.  In  itself  it  means  nothing  more  nor  less  than  noctur- 
nal, and  would  seem  to  be  applicable  either  to  an  animal  or  to  any  other 
object  peculiarly  belonging  to  the  night.  The  Vulgate  renders  it  by  lamia, 
a  word  used  very  much  like  the  EngHsh  witch,  but  derived  from  the  name 
of  a  Libyan  queen,  who,  having  lost  her  child,  was  said  to  prey  upon  the 
children  of  others.  With  this  may  be  connected  another  Roman  supersti- 
tion, that  of  the  f<tri.v  or  vampyre,  wliich  sucked  the  blood  of  children  in 
the  cradle.  These  superstitions  were  adopted  by  the  later  Jews,  and  con- 
nected with  the  world  before  us,  as  denoting  a  nocturnal  spectre  (or  she- 
demon  as  Gill  calls  it),  preying  upon  new-born  children,  against  which  the 
German  Jews  are  said  to  use  traditional  precautions.  This  gi-atuituous  in- 
terpretation of  the  Hebrew  word  was  unfortunately  sanctioned  by  Bochart 
and  Vitringa,  and  adopted  with  eagerness  by  the  modem  Germans,  who  re- 
joice in  every  opportunity  of  charging  a  mistake  in  physics  or  a  vulgar 
superstition  on  the  Scriptures.  This  disposition  is  the  more  apjiarent 
here,  because  the  writers  of  this  school  usually  pique  themselves  upon  the 
critical  discernment  with  which  they  separate  the  exegetical  inventions  of 
the  Rabbins  from  the  genuine  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Gesenius,  for 
example,  will  not  even  grant  that  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  Messiah  is  so 
much  as  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah,  although  no  opinion  has  been 
more  universally  maintained  by  the  Jews,  from  the  date  of  their  oldest 
uncanonical  books  extant.  In  this  case,  their  unanimous  and  uninterrupted 
testimony  goes  for  nothing,  because  it  would  establish  an  unwelcome  identity 
between  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  But  when  the  object 
is  to  fasten  on  the  Scriptures  a  contemptible  and  odious  superstition,  the 
utmost  deference  is  paid,  not  only  to  the  silly  legends  of  the  Jews,  but  to 
those  of  the  Greeks,  Romans,  Zabians,  and  Russians,  which  are  collated 
and  paraded  with  a  prodigal  expenditure  of  trilling  erudition,  to  prove  what 
never  was  disputed,  that  these  superstitions  have  existed  and  do  still 
exist ;  as  if  it  followed  of  course  that  they  were  current  in  the  days  of 
Isaiah,  and  if  not  believed,  are  distinctly  mentioned  by  him.  But  this  con- 
clusion would  bo  wholly  unauthorized,  even  if  the  words  of  the  Prophet  at 
first-sight  seemed  to  bear  that  meaning ;  how  much  more  when  it  can  only 
be  attached  to  them  by  violence  ?  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  stands  among  the 
writers  on  Isaiah  at  the  turning-point  between  belief  and  unbelief,  acquits 
the  Prophet  of  believing  in  such  spectres,  but  regards  it  as  a  case  of 
accommodation  to  popular  errors  or  illusions,  the  same  principle  on  which 
the  demoniacal  possessions  of  the  gospel  are  explained  away,  and  as  the 
ultimate  result  of  the  same  process,  the  historical  existence  of  Christ  himself 
resolved  into  a  mythus.  That  a  similar  mode  of  exposition  was  adopted  by 
such  men  as  Bochart  and  Vitringa,  only  proves  that  they  lived  before  its 
dangerous  tendency  had  been  developed.    It  should  also  be  considered  that 


to  ISAIAE  XXXIV.  [Ver.  14. 

nocturnal  spectres  had  not  then  been  so  decisively  referred  to  the  category 
of  ideal  beings  as  they  are  at  present.  These  remarks  aire  intended  merely 
to  prevent  an  inconsiderate  adoption  of  the  views  in  ipicstion,  on  the 
authority  cither  of  the  older  writers  or  the  modern  Germans.  Against  the 
views  themselves  there  are  substantive  objections  of  the  most  conclusive 
kind.  Besides  the  fact  already  mentioned,  that  rivv  strictly  moans  nocturnal 
and  that  its  application  to  a  spectre  is  entirely  gratuitous,  we  may  argue 
here,  as  in  chap.  xiii.  25,  that  ghosts  as  well  as  demons  would  be  wholly 
out  of  place  in  a  list  of  wild  and  solitary  animals.  That  such  animals  aro 
mentioned  in  the  tirst  clause  of  this  verse  and  of  the  next,  is  allowed  by  all 
interpreters,  however  widely  they  may  differ  as  to  the  specific  meaning  of 
the  terms  employed.  Taking  Geseuius's  interpretation,  the  first  item  in 
the  catalogue  is  tritd  cats,  the  second  uihl  iloifs,  the  third  (It'inonn,  the  fourth 
liol.f/olilins,  and  the  fifth  (irrou-siiakcs.  Is  this  a  natural  succession  of 
ideas  ?  Is  it  one  that  ought  to  be  assumed  without  necessity  ?  The  only 
necessity  that  can  exist  in  such  a  case  is  that  of  meeting  the  conditions  of 
the  context.  The  third  and  fourth  particulars  in  this  list  must  of  course  be 
Bomething  doleful  or  terrific ;  but  they  need  not  be  more  so  than  the  other 
objects  in  the  same  connection.  It  is  enough  if  they  belong  to  the  same 
class,  in  this  respect,  with  wild  cats,  jackals,  wolves,  and  arrow-snakes. 
This  is  sufficiently  secured  by  making  rivv  mean  a  nocturnal  bird  (Aben 
Ezra),  or  more  specifically,  nn  owl  (Cocceius),  or  screech-owl  (Lowth). 
But  the  word  admits  of  a  still  more  satisfactory  interpretation,  in  exact 
agreement  with  the  exposition  which  has  been  already  given  of  the  preceding 
terms  as  general  descriptions  rather  than  specific  names.  If  these  terms 
represent  the  animals  occupying  Idumea,  fii-st  as  belonging  to  the  wilder- 
ness (D*'^'),  then  as  distinguished  by  their  fierce  or  melancholy  cries  (Q"X), 
and  then  as  shaggA-  in  appearance  p'i'J'"),  nothing  can  be  more  natural  than 
that  the  fourth  epithet  should  also  be  expressive  of  their  habits  as  a  class,  and 
no  such  epithet  could  well  be  more  appropriate  than  that  of  nocturnal  or 
belonging  to  the  night.  Another  objection  to  the  meaning  s])ectrt'  is,  that 
the  poetry  and  legends  of  all  nations  have  ns?ociatcd  with  such  beings  the 
idea  of  inquietude.  When  Hamlet  says,  Heat,  rt'st,  y.erturhed  spirit  /  he 
virtually  tells  the  ghost  to  cease  to  bo  one.  But  here,  according  to  the 
fashionable  exegesis,  the  spectre  is  described,  not  as  flitting  or  gliding 
tlirough  the  hind  or  among  its  ruins,  hut  as  taking  up  its  lodgings  and 
reposing.  Of  all  the  figures  that  could  be  employed,  that  of  resting  seems 
to  be  the  least  appropriate  in  the  description  of  a  spectre,  and  (specially  of 
such  as  Gesenius  describes  to  us  from  Eastern  story  books  and  rabbinical 
traditions.  Of  this  incongruity  he  seems  to  have  had  at  least  a  vague 
apprehension,  as  he  strangely  says  that  the  terms  here  used  imply  a  rest- 
less wanderijig  state,  whereas  they  seem  to  imply  the  very  contrary,  and  no 
loss  strangely  cites  Mat.  xii.  48,  where  the  evil  spirit  is  expressly  said  to 
pass  through  dry  j)lace8  aeelcivj  rest  and  finding  none.  On  these  grounds, 
therefore,  that  the  Hebrew  word,  according  to  its  derivation,  simply  means 
ridctumal ;  that  in  this  sense  it  f-uits  perfectly  the  parallelism  and  the  con- 
text, as  containing  names  of  animals  or  rather  descriptions  of  their  halits  ; 
that  the  action  described  is  peculiarly  unsuitcd  to  a  ghost  or  a  sjjectre;  that 
the  Hcrii)tures  contain  no  intiniatioiis  of  the  real  existence  of  such  beings ; 
that  the  supposition  of  a  more  acccnimodation  to  the  popular  belief  is 
dangerous,  unworthy,  and  gratuitous  ;  and  that  the  existence  of  the  p(>pular 
belief  itself  so  early  is  eiccoilingly  improlmble  ;  wo  may  saf'ily  set  aside  Uio 
8|;cctrul  interpretation  as  uutcnublu  on  philological  and  hibtoricul  gruundH, 


Ver.  15,  IC]  ISAIAH  XXXIV.  31 

and  as  ccrtainl}'  not  worth  being  taken  for  granted.  The  same  considera- 
tions make  it  unncccessary  to  retain  the  Hebrew  word  [lilith),  as  Augusti 
and  Henderson  have  done,  as  if  in  obedience  to  the  llippant  direction  of 
John  David  MichaeUs,  that  whoever  will  not  tolerate  a  ghost  here  must 
retain  the  Hebrew  word  and  imagine  it  to  mean  what  he  pleases  {icas  ihm 
helicht).  The  alternatives  in  such  a  case  are  seldom  so  few  as  they  arc 
sometimes  represented  by  this  learned  and  ingenious,  but  conceited  and 
dogmatical  interpreter.  It  only  remains  to  observe  that  the  Septuagint 
Version,  the  authority  of  which  has  done  so  much  to  introduce  demom  into 
chap.  xiii.  23,  makes  use  of  the  word  bai'iovta,  in  this  verse  too,  but  as  the 
translation  of  D^'V,  while  its  favourite  term  bvojihravsoi  is  employed  to  repre- 
sent both  D''^i<  and  n'"?^*?.  This  absurd  intei-pretation  is  so  far  consistent 
with  itself,  that  it  makes  the  whole  verse  a  catalogue  of  nondescript  hob- 
goblins, demons,  and  ass-centaurs,  and  if  not  a  refutation  of  the  current  ex- 
position of  rivv,  is  at  least  a  severe  satire  on  it. 

15.  Several  manuscripts  and  one  of  the  oldest  editions  read  *113P  as  in 
ver.  1 1  above,  and  the  Septuagint  has  h/J^oz  in  both  places.     Jarchi  and 
Kimchi  explain  the  common  reading  (TIDp)  as  a  s}Tionyme.     It  is  supposed 
to  denote   different  kinds  of  birds   by   Calvin    {ulula),   Junius    (inenthi), 
Cocceius  (aiKitdria),  &c.     Bochart  objects  that   if  a  bird  were  meant,  its 
uinr/s  would  have  been  mentioned  in  the  other  clause,  and  not  merely  its 
shadow.     Most  of  the  modern  \vriters  follow  Bochart  in  explaining  it  to 
mean  the  srrpcns  jaciihis  or  arrow-snake,   so  called  from  its  darting  or 
springing  motion.     The  same  learned  writer  shews  that  the  use  of  the 
■word  nest  in  reference  to  serpents  is  common  in  Arabic  as  well  as  Greek  and 
Latin.    There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  giving  i^^i?  a  wider  meaning  as  Jerome 
does  (Jiahuitfovenm).     The  next  verb  is  rendered  by  the  Vulgate,  enutrivit 
catulos  ;    by   Castalio,    as  an   advei-bial   expression   meaning   safely,    wUh 
iinpiiiiity ;  but  by  the  gi-eat  mass  of  interpreters,  as  meaning  to  lai/  cf/i/s,  a 
sense  analogous  to  that  of  the  cognate  form  applied  in  chap.  Ixvi.  7  to 
human  parturition.     Jeroone  translates  the  next  verb  circumfodit,  but  most 
other  writers  hatch,  the  primary  sense  being  that  of  cleaving.  (Compare  chap, 
lix.  5.)     This  meaning  Luther  seems  to  give  to  mn,  perhaps  by  an  inad- 
vertent transposition.      Others   explain   it  to   mean  f/ather  (Junius),  hide 
(Augusti),  take  r^/e/jye  (Rosenmiiller),  but  the  latest  writers  brood  or  cherish, 
after  the  Vulgate  [fovet).     It  is  here  applied  to  the  young  when  hatched, 
as  it  is  in  Jer.  xvii.  11  to  the  eggs  of  the   partridge.      Calvin  seems   to 
refer  the  suffix  in   n?V3  not  to  the  animal  but  to  some   other   object. 
Grotius's  paraphrase  is  sid)  ruiiiis.     All  the  modem  writers  understand  it 
to  mean,  under  her  own  shadow.     H*^  is  either  the  black  vulture  (Bochart), 
or  the  kite  (Gesenins).     Lowth's  translation,  every  one  her  mate,  may  con- 
vey an  incorrect  idea,  as  both  the  Hebrew  words  are  feminine.     Cocceius 
disregards  the  gender  and  translates  the  phrase,  units  cum  altero.     As  to 
the  particular  species  of  animals  referred  to  in  tbis  whole  passage,  there  is 
no  need,  as  Ciilvin  well  observes,  of  troubling  ourselves  much  about  them. 
{^Non  est  cur  in  iis  ma^jnopcre  torqnraynttr.)    The  general  sense  evidently  is, 
that  a  human  population  should  be  succeeded  by  wild  and  lonely  animals, 
who  should  not  only  live  but  breed  there,   implying  total  and  continued 
desolation.     So   Horace   says   of  Troy:  Priumi  Paridisque  Imsto  insuUat 
armentum,  et  catulos  ferae  celant  inultce. 

16.  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  Jehovah  and  read.     Knobel  connects  1"n*T 
with  the  preceding  verse  {each  one  her  mate  they  seek),  and  then  changes 


82  /5.i/.l//  AA'A'7I'.  [Vkr.  16. 

the  remainder  of  this  clause  so  as  to  read  thus  :  N"ip'  nin*  nSDO  "?)},  hy  num- 
ber will  Jehovah  call  (them).     This  bears  a  stronf»  rcficmhianoe  to  Lowth's 
treatment  of  the  first  clause  of  vcr.  12,  but  is  still  more  extravagant.     The 
book  of  Jehovah  has  been  variously  explained   to   mean  the   book   of  his 
decrees  (Aben  Ezra),  his  annals  or  record  of  events  (Forerius),  the  Scrip- 
tures generally,  or  more  particularly  the  book  of  Genesis,  or  that  part 
which   relates   to   clean    and    unclean   animals   (Jarchi),   the  Mosaic    law 
relating  to  that  subject  (Joseph  Kimchi),  the  law  in  general  (Calvin),  the 
book  of  llevelation  (Gill),  the  book  of  Prophecy  in  general  (Junius),  the 
Prcjihecies  against  Edom  in  particular  (Alting),  and  finally  tliis  vi'it  pro- 
phecy (l)avid  Kiniclii).     The  most  natural  interpretation  seems  to  be  that 
which  makes  this  an  exhortation  to  compare  the  prophecy  with  the  event, 
and  which  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  fact  that  all  the  verbs  are  in 
the  past  tense,  implying  that  the  Prophet  liere  takes  his  stand  at  a  point 
of  time  posterior  to  the  event.     Thv  book  may  then  be  this  particular  pro- 
phecy, or  the  whole  prophetic  volume,  or   the  entire  Scripture,   without 
material  change  of  sense.     The  persons  addressed  are  the  future  witnesses 
of  the  event.    7yt3  does  not  mcan//077i  top  to  bottom,  as  Vitringa  imagines, 
but  simply  /Vom  upon,  as  we  speak  of  reading  a  sentence  off  a  book  or  paper. 
This  expression  seems  to  have  been  used  in  anticipation  of  the  verb  li^'^P, 
which  has  here  the  sense  of  publishing  by  reading  aloud.     One  of  them  has 
not  fniled.     A  very  few  writers  understand  this  as  relating  to    the  evils 
threatened  ;  but  the  great  majority  more  naturally  apply  it  to  the  animals 
mentioned   in  the  preceding  verses,  as  signs  of  desolation.     As  if  he  had 
said,  I  predicted  that  Edom  should  be  occupied  by  such  and  such  creatures, 
and   behold  they  are   all   here,  not  one  of  them  is   wanting.     This  is   a 
lively  and  impressive   mode  of  saying,  the  prediction  is  fulfilled.      One 
another  they  miss  nut.    The  verb  has  here  the  sense  of  mustering  or  review- 
ing to  discover  who  is  absent,  as  in  1  Sam  xx.  6,  xxv.  lo.     The  reference 
is  not  to  the  pairing  of  animals  (liarnes),  because  both  ni;*S  and  nniyi  are 
feminine,  and  because  the  context  requires   an  allusion  to  the  meeting  of 
diil'erent  species,  not  of  the  individuals  of  one  kind.     For  my  mouth,  it  has 
commanded  ;  and  hia  spirit  it  has ynthered  them,  i.e.  the  animals  aforesaid. 
The  last  phrase  is  a  more  specific  explanation  of  the  general  expression 
has  comwdudfd.     To  add  a  suffix  to  the  latter,  therefore,  would  complete 
the  parallelism  but  disturb  the  sense.     The  sudden  change  of  person  from 
my  mouth  to  his  spirit  has  led  to  various  explanations.     Houbigant  reads 
VD  and  Knobel  IH^D,  hix  mouth,  which  is  actually  found  in  a  few  manu- 
scripts.    Lowth  reads  fl1'"l*  for  t<in,  the  mouth  of  Jehovah,  which  is  not 
only  arbitrary'  but   in   violation  of  his   favourite  principle  of  parallelism. 
The   same  objection   lies  against  the  explanation  of  Kin^  by  Glassius  and 
Simouis,  as  a  divine  name,  and  by  Rosenmiiller  and  Dathe,  as  a  substitute 
for  it.     Such  an  explanation  of  the  second  N^n  is  precluded  by  the  fore- 
going suffix.     A  much  more  plausible  solution  is  the  one  proposed  by  Aben 
Ezra  and   Kimchi,    who  refer  the  suffix  in  inn  to  'S  (my  mouth  and  its 
breath),  and  thus  makes  God   the   speaker  in  both  clauses.      Hut  on  the 
wljole,  the  simplest  course  is  either  to  suppose  with  Vitringa  that  Jehovah 
speaks  in  one  clause  and  the  Prophet  in  the  next,  an  enallage  too  frecpient 
to  be  inadmissible,   or  that  the   Pro))het  really  refers  the  couunand  to  his 
own  mouth  instrumentally,  but  then  inmiediutely  names  the  I>ivine  Spirit 
aH  the  erticient  agent.     This  is  the  less  improbable  because  the  first  clause 
of  tlio  verse,  as  wo  have  seen,  contains  an  appeal  to  his  own  written  pro- 
diction.     The  Spirit  of  God  is  not  merely  his  power  but  himself,  with 


Ves.  17.]  ISAIAH  XXXV. 


33 


Bpcciul  reference  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  being  both  the  author  and  fulfiUor 
of  the  prophecies. 

17.  lie  too  has  cast  the  lot  for  them,  and  his  hand  has  divided  it  to  them 
hj  line.  An  evident  allusion  to  the  division  of  the  land  of  Canaan  both 
by  lot  and  measuring-line.  (See  Num.  xxvi.  55,  5G  ;  Josh,  xviii  '4-6  ) 
As  Canaan  was  allotted  to  Israel,  so  Edom  is  allotted  to  these  doleful 
creatui-es.  Ha\ing  referred  to  the  allotment  as  already  past,  he  now  de- 
scribes the  occupation  as  future  and  perpetual.  For  ever  shall  they  hold  it  as 
a  heritaije,  to  all  generations  shall  they  dwt'll  therein.  Cocceius,  who  applies 
the  whole  prediction  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  thus  explains  this  last  clause  : 
numjuam  restituetur  respuhlica  Judicorum  in  ilia  terra. 

CHAPTER   XXXV. 

A  GREAT  and  glorious  change  is  here  described  under  the  figure  of  a 
desert  clothed  with  luxuriant  vegetation,  vers.  1,  2.  The  people  are 
encouraged  with  the  prospect  of  this  change,  and  with  the  promise  of 
aveuguig  judgments  on  their  enemies,  vers.  3,  4.  The  same  change  is 
then  expressed,  by  a  change  of  figure,  as  a  healing  of  corporeal  infirmities, 
vers.  5,  G.  The  former  figure  is  again  resumed,  and  the  wilderness  de- 
scribed as  free  from  all  its  wonted  inconveniences,  particularly  those  of 
barrenness  and  thirst,  disappointment  and  illusion,  pathlessness  and  beasts 
of  prey,  vers.  7-9.  The  whole  prediction  winds  up  with  a  promise  of 
redemption,  restoration,  and  endless  blessedness,  ver.  10. 

This  chapter  is  regarded  by  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  and  Rosenmuller   as 
entirely  distinct  from  that  before  it ;  by  Hitzig  as  a  separate  composition  of 
the  same  writer ;  but  by  most  interpreters  as  a  direct  continuation  of  it 
According  to  Kosennuiller,  it  was  written  by  the  author  of  chaps,  xi     xii   • 
according  to  Umbreit,  by  the  author  of  chaps.' xl.-lx\-i.,  accordingto  Ewald,by 
another  in  imitation  of  that  writer  ;  according  to  Gesenius,  by  the  author  of 
chaps,  xiii.,  XIV.,  which  the  passage  before  us  resembles,  he  says,  in  its  literary 
merit   and  its  moral   defects,  especially  its  spirit  of  revenge  and  blood- 
thirsty hatred.     All  these  writers  agree  that  it  cannot  be  the  work  of  Isaiah. 
As  a  sample  of  the  proofs  on  which  their  judgment  rests,  it  may  be  stated 
that  Hitzig  makes  the  use  of  the  form  I'Vn,  and  of  the  phrase  2^  ''\r^m   a 
proof  of  later  date.     He  authoritatively  sets  it  down  as  beloncrin^  to  the 
period  immediately  before  the  termination  of  the  exile.     By  such  assertions 
and  pretended  proofs,  its  genuineness  is  of  course  unshaken. 
_    With  respect  to  the  subject  of  the  chapter  there  is  no  less  diversity  of 
judgment.     It  has  been  explained  with  equal  confidence  as  a  description 
ot  the  state  of  Judah  under  Hezekiah  (Grotius),  of  the  return  from  exile 
(Clericus),  of  the  state  of  Judah  after  that  event  (Rosenmiillor),  of  that 
state  and  the  times  of  the  New  Testament  together  (J.  H.  Michaelis)   of 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  (Cocccius),  of  the  Christian  dispensation  (Luther 
Calvin),  of  the  state  of  the  church  after  the  fall  of  antichrist  (Vitrin-m), 
of  the  state  of  Palestine  at  some  future  period  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  and  of  a 
future  state  of  blessedness  (Gill).     These  arbitrary  hypotheses  refute  each 
other.      Ihe  best  description  of  the  chapter  is  that  given  by  Au-^usti  in  tho 
title  to  his  version  of  it,  where  he  represents  it  as  the  description  of  a  happy 
condition  of  the  church  after  a  period  of  suffering.     This  is  no  doubt  its 
true  import,  and  when  thus  explained  it  may  be  considered  as  including 

VOL.  II.  ° 


84  ISA lA IT  XXXV.  [Veb.  1,  2. 

various  particulars,  none  of  which  can  be  regarded  as  its  specific  or  exclusive 
subject.  Gcscnius  says  this  prophecy  was  of  course  never  fulfilled  ;  but  so 
far  is  this  from  being  true,  that  il  has  rather  been  fulfilled  again  and  again. 
Without  any  change  of  its  essential  meaning,  it  may  be  applied  to  the  resto- 
ration of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  to  the  vocation  of  the  Gentiles,  to  the 
whole  Christiiin  dispensation,  to  the  course  of  ever}'  individual  believer,  and 
to  the  blessedness  of  heaven.  The  ground  of  this  manifold  application  is 
not  that  the  language  of  the  passage  is  unmeaning  or  indefinite,  but  that 
there  is  a  real  and  designed  analogA-  between  the  various  changes  men- 
tioned which  brings  them  all  within  the  natural  scope  of  the  same  inspired 
description. 

1.  Desert  ami  xiaste  shall  rejoice  {for)  them.  The  verb  is  translated 
as  an  imperative  of  the  second  or  third  person  by  the  Septungint, 
Cocceius,  and  others ;  and  as  a  descriptive  present  by  Gesenius  and  some 
later  writers  ;  but  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  strict 
sense  of  the  future.  The  desert  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  Idumea, 
Judea,  the  Jewish  Church,  the  Christian  Church,  the  Gentile  world,  and 
the  wilderness  separating  Palestine  from  Babylonia.  The  true  sense  seems 
to  be  that  given  by  Gesenius,  who  snpposes  the  blooming  of  the  desert  to  be 
nsed  here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  to  express  an  entire  revolution,  the  subject 
of  the  change  being  not  determined  by  the  figure  itself  but  by  the  whole  con- 
nection. The  final  D  has  been  variously  explained,  as  a  suffix,  eqivalent  to 
Dn3,  Cn?,  or  DOy  ;  as  a  paragogic  letter,  used  instead  of  |,  on  account  of  the 
D  following ;  and  as  a  mere  orthographical  mistake,  arising  from  the  same 
cause.  Those  who  make  it  a  suffix,  refer  it  either  to  the  animals  described 
in  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter,  or  to  the  judgments  there  threatened 
against  Edom,  or  to  the  Jewish  exiles  returning  from  captivity.  The  suthi 
is  not  expressed  in  any  of  the  ancimt  versions.  Kennicott  supposes  the 
D  to  have  been  added  merely  to  complete  the  lino ;  but  why  should  such  a 
form  have  been  perpetuated  ?  The  idea  of  the  first  clause  is  repeated  ia 
the  second.  And  (he  wihlerness  shall  rejoice  and  hlo^isom  at  the  rose. 
This  explanation  of  the  lust  word  is  given  by  several  of  the  Rabbins,  and 
retained  by  Junius.  Cocceius,  Lowth,  and  Augusti.  The  later  \\Titers  ob- 
ject that  the  word,  according  to  its  etymolog}-,  must  denote  a  bulbous  plant. 
The  ancient  versions,  with  Luther  and  Calvin,  make  it  mean  the  lily,  which 
is  retained  by  Ewald  ;  but  for  this  flower  the  language  has  a  diflereut  name. 
Saadias  and  Abulwalid  explain  it  as  the  nnrcissit.^,  which  is  approved  by  Gese- 
nius in  his  Commentary,  and  after  him  by  most  of  the  later  German  writers. 
But  in  his  Thesaurus  he  makes  it  mean  the  colchicum  aultimnale  or  nieadow- 
saflfron.  Amidst  this  diversity  and  doubt,  it  is  best  with  liamos  to  retain 
the  English  word  rose,  as  more  familiar  and  as  conveying  a  more  striking 
image  of  beauty.  The  poetry,  if  not  the  botany,  of  this  tniuslatiou  is  supe- 
rior to  Henderson's  {and  blossom  as  the  crocm). 

2.  The  some  idea  of  complete  and  joyful  change  is  again  expressed  by 
the  same  figure,  but  with  greater  fulness,  the  dcsrrt  being  here  described  as 
putting  on  and  wearing  the  appearance  of  the  spots  most  noted  for  luxu- 
riant vegetation.  [It  shall)  Uoisoni,  tt  shall  blossom  and  rejoice ;  yea,  [w:th  i 
joy  and  shoutiny  ;  or,  yea,  joy  and  shouting  {there  shall  be).  The  ylory  oj 
Jylniniin  is  yiirn  unto  it  (the  desert),  the  beauty  of  Cannel  and  of  Sharon. 
They  (who  witness  this  great  change)  shall  str  the  glory  of  Jehovah,  tits 
beauty  of  our  God.  The  figures  here  employed  are  so  familiar,  and  in 
their  obvious  meaning  so  expressive,  that  we  only  weaken  their  irffect  by 
treating  them  as  symbols  or  an  ullogory.     Thus  Jarchi  understands  by  the 


Ver.  3.]  ISAIAH  XXXV.  35 

glory  of  Lebanon  the  temple ;  Gill,  choice  and  excellent  Chiintiant,  &c. 
As  a  change  in  the  relative  condition  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  is  no  doubt 
inclu'lod  in  the  prophecy,  there  is  not  the  same  object  on  to  the  opinion  of 
Forerius,  that  the  second  clause  of  the  verse  denotes  the  transfer  of  God's 
spiritual  presence,  and  the  glory  connected  with  it,  from  the  Jewish  to  the 
Christian  Church.  According  to  G:i^colarapadius,  Lebanon,  Carmel,  and  Sha- 
ron are  here  mentioned,  as  natural  boundaries  or  landmarks  of  the  country. 
Schmidius  supposes  that  a  mountain,  a  cultivated  field,  and  an  extensive 
plain,  are  given  as  samples  of  the  whole,  to  intimate  that  nothing  should  be 
wanting  to  the  perfection  of  the  state  here  promised  and  described.  But 
Lebanon  and  Carmel  are  both  mountains,  i;nless  we  give  the  latter  its  generic 
sense  oi  fndl Jul  field,  as  Junius  and  Tremellius  do,  in  obvious  violation 
of  the  context,  since  the  preceding  and  the  following  word  are  evidently 
proper  names.  The  glory  or  heauly  of  the  places  named,  is  not  fertility, 
as  Grotius  thinks,  but  rather  its  effect  as  seen  in  their  luxuriant  vegetation. 
The  reduplication  of  the  first  verb  in  the  sentence  is  regarded  by  almost  all 
interpreters  as  emphatic,  though  they  differ  greatly  as  to  its  precise  force. 
Calvin  and  Junius  make  it  expressive  of  abundant  and  progressive  growth, 
as  if  he  had  said,  it  shall  blossom  more  and  more.  Hitzig  applies  it  to  the 
rankness  of  the  growth  {Jioch  sprosat  sie  auf),  Knobel  to  its  universality 
{ganz  sprosset  sic).  Augusti  repeats  the  verb  as  in  Hebrew  {hluhenja  hliihen) 
and  the  Vulgate  copies  the  precise  form  still  more  closely  {germinans  ger- 
vunahit)  The  future  translation  of  l^!)?  by  Calvin  and  the  English  Version 
is  gratuitous  and  arbitrary.  The  preterite  form  points  out  the  true  re- 
lation of  the  cause  to  its  effect.  It  shall  rejoice  because  the  glory  of 
Lebanon  has  bren  given  to  it.  The  pronoun  they  is  referred  by  Vitringa  to 
the  desert,  Lebanon,  &c.  But  as  these  are  the  immediate  antecedents,  the 
pronoun  would  hardly  have  been  introduced,  except  for  the  purpose  of 
directing  attention  to  some  other  nominative  than  the  nearest,  as  in  Ps. 
xxii.  18.  The  true  sense  is  probably  that  given  in  the  Septuagint  (my 
people)  and  the  Targum  {the  house  of  Israel),  and  in  a  more  general  form 
by  Clericus  {qui  aderunt).  Listead  of  i^ll,  the  Seventy  seem  to  have  read 
pi*  {rn  hjt'ta  tvj  'losSai'ou),  and  this  reading  with  a  corresponding  change 
of  the  preceding  word,  is  adopted  by  Houb'gant  f^'^'''^  ^'^'^),  Keunicott 
(p"l\"l  nn:),  and  Lowth  {the  well  watered  plain  of  Jordaii).  The  words, 
as  the}'  stand  in  the  common  text,  may  be  construed  either  with  a  preposi- 
tion or  the  substantive  verb  understood.  Eleven  manuscripts  read  "P 
{to  thee)  for  n"?  {to  it),  which  merely  converts  the  description  into  an 
apostrophe. 

3.  With  the  prospect  of  this  glorious  change  the  people  are  commanded 
to  encourage  themselves  and  one  another.  Strengthen  hands  (now)  si7ik- 
ing,  and  knees  (now)  tottering  male  firvi.  The  hands  and  knees  are  here 
combined,  as  Vitringa  observes,  to  express  the  powers  of  action  and  en- 
durance. The  participial  forms  represent  the  hands  as  actually  hanging 
down,  relaxed,  or  weakened,  and  the  knees  as  actually  giving  way.  The 
passage  explained  is  far  more  expressive  than  if  we  make  the  participles 
adjectives,  denoting  a  permanent  quality  or  habitual  condition.  In  itself 
the  language  of  this  verse  is  applicable  either  to  self-encouragement  or  to 
the  consolation  of  others.  It  is  understood  to  mean  renew  your  own 
strength,  by  Cocceius  and  Clericus  {reparate  vires  vestras).  ]\Iost  of  the 
older  writers,  and  some  moderns,  make  the  other  the  prominent  idea,  and 
suppose  the  command  to  be  addressed  to  those  in  office  (Barnes),  or  to 


8G  IS  ALU  I  XXXV.  [Ver.  4. 

miniskrs  (Calvin),  or  to  the  prophets  (Knohel),  or  to  these  aud  other  «;ood 
men  (Grotius),  or  to  the  people  geuerally  (Junius).  Neither  of  these 
interpretations  is  erroneous  except  in  being  too  exclusive.  There  is  do 
reason  whj'  the  words  should  not  be  taken  in  their  widest  sense,  ns 
meaning,  let  despondency  be  exchanged  for  hope.  That  self-encourage- 
ment is  not  excluded,  may  V)e  learned  from  Paul's  use  of  the  worJs  iu 
that  sense  (Heb.  xii.  12).  That  mutual  encouragement  is  not  excluded, 
is  sufficiently  aj)partnt  from  the  following  verse.  Thus  understood  the 
words  may  be  considered  as  including,  but  not  as  .'>pecifically  signifving 
spiritual  weakness  or  inability  to  do  Gods  will  (Targuai),  and  the  duty  of 
enccurnging  the  Gentiles  with  the  pros-pect  of  admission  to  his  favour 
(Menochius).  The  specific  ai)plication  of  the  passage  to  the  Iioman  per- 
secutions (Gurtlerus)  is  gratuitous.  Equally  so  is  the  idea  that  the  Jews 
are  here  encouraged  under  the  depressing  recollection  of  sufl'erings  already 
past  (Grotius),  or  under  the  alarm  excited  by  tlic  foregoing  threats  (Calvin). 
The  same  objection  lies  against  the  exclusive  reference  of  the  words  to  the 
exiles  in  Bal»ylun  who  distrusted  the  promises  (Hendewerk),  or  believed 
themselves  to  be  forsaken  by  Jehovah  (Knobel).  As  a  general  exhortation, 
they  are  applicable  to  these  aud  to  many  other  situations,  none  of  which 
can  be  regarded  as  the  exclusive  subject  of  the  promise.  The  figures 
here  used  are  the  same  with  those  employed  in  chap.  xiii.  7,  and  in  Job 
iv.  8,  4.  The  image  presented  is  that  of  persons  who  can  acarcdy  lift 
up  their  hands  or  sl'ind  upon  tJuir  leys  (Gill).  The  Septuagint  supposes 
the  command  to  be  addressed  to  the  hands  themselves  {IfiyJjeaTi  y^ii^t;). 
Hitzig  gratuitously  changes  hinid.^  to  aryns,  as  in  chaps,  x.  10,  13,  xiv.  27, 
xix.  10,  XXV.  10,  xxvi.  11,  &c. 

4.  This  verse  shews  how  the  command  in  the  one  before  it  is  to  be  obeyed, 
by  suggesting,  as  topics  of  mutual  encouragement,  the  vindicatorv-  justice 
of  God,  and  his  certain  interposition  in  behalf  of  his  peoi»le.  Suy  yc  to  the 
hashj  of  heart  (/,  r.  the  impatient,  those  who  cannot  wait  for  the  fullil- 
ment  of  God's  promise),  lie  firm,  ft  ar  not :  behold  your  God  [\\s  if  already 
present  or  in  sight)  ;  vewjeauce  is  cotnitig,  the  retribution  of  God  ;  he  {him- 
self) is  coniinff,  and  uitl  sarr  yuu.  The  connecting  link  between  his 
vengeance  and  their  safety  is  the  destruction  of  their  enemies.  [Seeing 
it  is  a  rifjhtedus  thing  irilh  God  to  recompense  tribulation  to  them  that 
trouble  you,  2  Thes.  i.  (5.)  ">nD3,  as  a  passive  participle,  corresponds,  iu 
form  and  sense,  to  the  English  hurried.  It  has  been  variously  exj)liiined  as 
meaning  inconsiderate  (Junius),  precipitate  (Cocceius),  inconstant  (Vata- 
blus),  faint-hearted  (Lowth),  palpitating  (Rosenmuller),  ready  to  flee 
(Gesenius),  haxly  in  drawing  black  conelusions  ujron  themselves  and  their  state 
(Gill).  But  the  true  sense  seems  to  be  the  one  expressed  by  Clericus,  to  wit, 
impatient  of  delay  iu  the  execution  of  God's  promises  {ijui  n alias  moras 
a(pio  animo  ferre  jxtssnnt.)  This  includes  the  ideas  of  despondency  and 
unbelieving  fear,  while  at  the  same  time  it  adheres  to  tin-  strict  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  word.  Compare  the  analogous  expression  in  chap,  xxvlii.  lt»,  he  that 
belirrrth  uill  not  mal,e  /lu.sr*'  or  bo  impatient.  The  construction  of  tlio 
second  clause  is  greatly  ju-qjUxed  by  making  D2'n^N  the  subject  of  N12\ 
Thus  the  English  version,  which  is  fctunded  ujkmi  Calvin's,  supplies  two 
prepositions  and  assumes  an  unusual  inversion  of  the  terms.  Your  Gwl  will 
Ci^me  (with)  vengeance,  even  Gml  (with)  a  recomj>€nee.  This  construction 
also  involves  lui  anticlimax,  as  the  simple  name  of  God  is  of  course  less 
emphatic  than  the  full  phrase  your  God.  Luther  has  <<»  vengeance  and  God 
who  rrcovijienycs.     Jerome  mnkes   the   construction  still  more  complex  by 


Vee.  5,  C:  ISAIAII  XXXV.  37 

translating  XH'  as  a  causative  (ultionem  adducel  retrihutionis).  The  true 
construction,  as  given  by  Junius,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  and  most  later  writers, 
makes  heliohl  your  God  an  exclamation,  and  vengeance  the  subject  of  the 
verb.  Vitringa  observes  that  ^^12'  is  here  used  to  express  both  the  present 
and  the  future,  an  idea  which  may  be  conveyed  in  English  by  the  idiomatic 
phrase,  is  coming  or  ahout  to  come.  The  ^<in  might  be  grammatically  con- 
strued with  71^3  {^it  will  cnwe),  but  as  the  act  of  saving  is  immediately  after- 
wards ascribed  to  the  same  subject,  it  is  better  to  explain  the  pronoun  as 
an  emphatic  designation  of  Jehovah.  Not  only  his  vengeance  but  himself 
is  coming.  Grotius,  true  to  his  principle  of  seeking  the  fulfilment  of  all 
prophecies  in  the  days  of  the  Prophet  himself,  explains  he  tvlll  save  yon  as 
meaning  he  will  not  let  the  Fjhiopians  reach  you.  The  exclusive  application 
of  the  threatening  here  implied  to  the  Babylonians,  the  Jews,  Antichrist, 
or  the  Devil,  is  untenable  for  reasons  which  have  been  already  given  in  the 
exposition  of  the  foregoing  verse.  While  Barnes  denies  that  the  phrase 
your  God  refers  to  the  Messiah,  Calovius  alleges  that  the  name  oi  Jesus  is 
expressly  mentioned,  being  included  in  the  verb  V^'*.  The  words  are 
really  a  promise  of  deliverance  to  God's  people,  and  include,  as  the 
most  important  part  of  their  contents,  the  unsj'e'dcable  gift  of  Christ  and 
his  salvation. 

5,  6.  The  change  in  the  condition  of  the  people  is  now  represented  by 
another  figure,  the  removal  of  corporeal  infirmities.  Then  (when  God  has 
thus  come)  shall  the' eyes  of  the  blind  be  opened,  and  the  ears  of  the  deaf 
shall  be  unstopped.  Then  shall  the  lame  leap  (or  bound)  as  an  hart,  and  the 
tongue  of  the  dumb  shall  shout  {for  joy),  because  waters  have  burst  forth  in 
the  u-ilderness  and  streams  in  the  desert.  The  reason  assigned  iu  this  last 
clause  for  the  joy  to  be  expressed,  shews  clearly  that  the  miraculous  removal 
of  disease  and  the  miraculous  irrigation  of  the  desert  are  intended  to  ex- 
press one  and  the  same  thing.  The  essential  idea  in  both  cases  is  that  of 
sudden  and  extraordinary  change.  This  precludes  Grotius's  interpretation 
of  the  fifth  verse,  as  meaning  that  the  most  obtuse  and  prejudiced  shall  see 
and  acknowledge  what  God  has  wrought.  It  also  precludes  Jonathan's 
symbolical  exposition  of  the  words  as  predicting  the  removal  of  spiritual 
disabilities,  and  the  opposite  hj'pothesis,  maintained  by  many  of  the  older 
writers,  that  Isaiah  here  explicitly  foretells  the  miracles  of  Christ.  Calo- 
vius asserts  that  Christ  himself  has  so  interpreted  the  passage  in  Matt.  xi. 
5  ;  Luke  vii.  22.  But,  as  Henderson  justly  says,  there  is  no  proof  what- 
ever that  Christ  refers  John  the  Baptist  to  this  prophecy;  he  employs  none 
of  the  fomiulas  which  he  uniformly  uses  when  directing  attention  to  the 
Old  Testament  {e.g.  in  Matt.  ix.  10,  xi.  10,  xii.  17,  xiii.  14),  but  simply 
appeals  to  his  miracles  in  proof  of  his  INIessiahship :  the  language  is  similar, 
but  the  subjects  different.  Another  argument  is  urged  by  J.  T).  Michaelig, 
namely,  that  the  last  clause  of  the  sixth  verse  cannot  be  applied  to  the 
miracles  of  Christ,  and  yet  it  obviously  forms  a  part  of  the  same  prophetic 
picture.  The  evasion  of  this  ditliculty,  by  assuming,  as  Vitringa  seems 
inclined  to  do,  a  mixture  of  literal  and  figurative  langiiage  in  the  parallel 
clauses  of  the  very  same  description,  is  one  of  those  arbitrary  exegetical 
expedients,  which  can  only  be  aflirmed  on  one  side  and  rf  jocted  on  the 
other.  To  the  question,  whether  this  prediction  is  in  no  sense  applicable  to 
our  S'viour's  miracles,  we  may  reply  with  Calvin,  that  although  they  are 
uot  directly  mentioned,  they  were  really  an  emblem  and  example  of  the 
great  change  which  is  here  described.  So,  too,  the  spiritual  cures  effected 
by  the'gospcl,  although  not  specifically  signified  by  these  words,  are  included 


88  ISA/A//  XSXi:  [Veb.  7. 

in  the  glorious  revolufion  which  they  do  denote.  The  simple  meaning  of 
the  passage  is,  that  the  divine  interposition  which  had  just  been  promised 
should  produce  as  wonderful  a  change  on  the  condition  of  mankind,  as  if 
the  blind  were  to  receive  their  sight,  the  dumb  to  speak,  the  deaf  to  hear, 
the  lame  to  walk,  and  deserts  to  be  fertilised  and  blossom  as  the  rose.  In 
the  process  uf  this  mighty  trau!-mut:ition  miracles  were  really  performed 
both  of  a  bodily  and  spiritual  nature,  but  the  great  change  which  includes 
these  includes  \astly  more.  Gcsenius  and  others  underslanJ  the  sixth  verse 
as  describing  the  joy  of  the  returning  exiles,  which  uiight  be  compared  to 
that  of  men  miraculously  healed  ;  but  it  is  far  more  natural  to  understand 
the  healing  as  descriptive  of  the  change  itself,  which  must  therefore  be  much 
more  extensive  than  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  although 
this  may  be  one  of  the  particulars  included.  To  the  explanation  of  iy?33 
as  a  future,  there  is  the  same  objection  as  to  that  of  1^3  in  ver.  2.  The  ori- 
ginal form  of  expression  is  not  that  they  kIkiII  rejoice  for  waters  slmll  burst 
forth,  but  that  they  shall  rejoice  because  waters  have  burst  forth  already; 
the  last  event  being  spoken  of  as  relatively  past,  i.e.  as  previous  to  the  act 
of  rejoicing  which  the  future  verb  expresses.  The  version  uhcn  they  .shall 
have  Iniiiit  J'oilh  (Cocceius)  yields  an  equally  good  sense,  and  indeed  the 
same  in  substance,  but  departs,  without  necessity,  from  the  usual  and  strict 
sense  of  the  particle.  The  suggestion,  which  Barnes  quotes  from  Camp- 
bell's travels  in  South  Africa,  that  lameness  and  dumbness  {i.e.  indisposi- 
tion or  inability  to  speak)  are  here  alludid  to  as  painful  incidents  to  travel 
in  the  desert,  is  striking  and  ingenious,  but  a  little  far-fetched  nnd  at  variance 
with  the  context,  which  requires  changes  more  extraordinary  than  the  mere 
relief  of  taciturnity  and  footsore  weariness.  Here,  as  in  chap,  xxxiv.  14,  J.  D. 
Michaelis  first  suggests  a  fanciful  interpretation  (making  lameness  denote  ill 
success  in  war),  and  then  prescribes,  as  the  only  alternative,  a  reference  to 
the  paths  of  virtue  and  religion,  in  which  those  who  are  deficient  may  be 
said  to  halt  or  limp.  Clericus.  who  usually  follows  Grotius  in  preferring 
the  lowest  and  the  most  material  sense  of  which  the  language  is  susceptible, 
applies  these  words  to  spiritual  changes,  but  thinks  it  n«cessary  to  apologise 
for  this  departure  from  his  usual  mode  of  exegesis,  which  he  does  by  adding 
to  his  note  upon  the  sixth  verse,  (.r  qiiibtis  iiitellitieir  licclil,  (jtiaimjiiam 
propriam  trrbontm  jtutestatem  .sedeniur  (iiiotiesciiWijiie  litrt,  )ios  ttbi  lucesse 
est  ad  tralatitium  adeofjitt:  allrrfinicinu  {at  rocalai)  seiisum  ileieaire.  The 
only  wonder  is,  that  he  was  able  to  overcome  his  scruples  in  a  case  wh<  re 
there  is  no  necessity  whatever  for  the  so-called  allegoricnl  interjiretation,  but 
a  simple  instance  of  poetical  metaphor.  The  verb  P"»,  to  which  the  older 
writers  gave  the  sense  oi  siiKjimj,  is  explained  by  the  modern  lexicographers 
as  properly  denoting  the  expression  of  joyous  feelings  by  inarticulate  cries 
or  shouts. 

7.  The  idea  of  complete  and  joyful  change  is  still  expressed  by  tlie  trans- 
formation of  a  desert,  and  the  consequent  removal  of  its  inconveniences, 
among  which  the  Prophet  here  particularly  mentions  the  lantnlis'ng  illusions 
to  which  travellers  in  the  wilderness  are  subject.  Ami  the  miraije  Jiall 
become  a  pool  (or  the  sand  like  a  water  lake,  the  seeming  lake  a  real  one), 
and  the  thirsty  laud  sjninys  of  xcaler,  {even)  in  the  haunt  of  irohes,  their 
lair,  a  court  {or  jieU)  for  reed  and  rush.  Instead  of  the  general  meaning 
put  U])on  3X'  by  the  older  writers  following  the  Septuagint  (a»i;rtj6;)  and 
the  Vulgate  {(pur  erat  arida),  it  is  now  agreed  that  the  word  denotes  the 
illusive  appearance  caused  by  unequal  refraction  in  the  lower  strata  of  the 
atmosphert!,  and  often  witnessed  both  at  sea  and  land,  called  in  English 


Ver.  7.J  ISAIAH  XXXV.  39 

looming,  iu  Italian  fata  morfjana,  and  in  French  miraije.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
thanks  God  that  the  German  language  has  no  need  of  such  a  term;  but 
Ewald  and  Umbreit  use  Kimnnnvj  as  an  equivalent.  Other  equivalents  are 
employed  by  Hitzig  (IVasserschein),  De  Wette  {Sandmeer),  Hcndewerk 
(Sawhchimmer),  and  Henderson  {rajjoury  illusion).  In  the  deserts  of 
Arabia  and  Africa,  the  appearance  presented  is  precisely  that  of  an  exten- 
sive sheet  of  water,  tending  not  only  to  mislead  the  traveller,  but  to  aggra- 
vate his  thirst  by  disappointment.  The  phenomenon  is  well  described  by 
Quintius  Curtius  in  his  Life  of  Alexander  the  Great.    [Arenas  vapor  cestivi 

soils  accendit Camporiiin  nan  alia  ijiiain  vasti  el  profundi  aquoris 

^ecies  est.)  It  is  thus  referred  to  in  the  Koran  (xxiv.  39) :  And  as  for 
those  who  disbelieve,  their  deeds  are  like  the  mlraye  (u->^--.-)  In  the  desert; 
the  thirsty  reckons  it  for  tvater,  till  when  he  comes  he  finds  It  notlilng. 
More  deceitful  than  the  mirage  (or  serah)  is  an  Arabian  proverb.  Gesenius 
follows  Hyde  in  deriving  the  Hebrew  word  from  a  Persian  phrase  meaning 
a  surface  of  water.  Hitzig  explains  it  as  an  Arabic  derivative  denoting  an 
abundant  flow  or  stream.  Its  introduction  here  adds  a  beautiful  stroke  to 
the  description,  not  only  by  its  local  propriety,  but  by  its  strict  agreement 
with  the  context.  The  etymology  of  VI^D  suggests  the  idea  of  a  gushing 
fountain,  which  is  expressed  in  some  translations,  particularly  those  of  Lowth 
[bubbling  spri)iys)  and  Augusti  (Sprudclqucllen).  Gesenius  and  the  other 
recent  German  writers  render  C^n  jackals,  as  in  chap.  xiii.  21,  and  xxxiv.  13  ; 
but  Henderson's  translation  [wolves)  has  a  better  etlect  in  Enoilish.  The 
essential  idea  is  that  of  wild  and  solitary  animals.  ni2  and  "^^^'H  are  com- 
bined as  in  chap,  xxxiv.  13.  The  latter  word  is  explained  by  some  as 
meaning  grass,  and  the  whole  clause  as  predicting,  that  hay  and  reeds  and 
rushes  (Luther),  or  grass  rvith  reeds  and  rushes  (Junius),  shall  grow  in 
•what  was  once  the  haunt  of  wild  beasts  ;  or  that  grass  shall  grow  instead  of 
reeds  and  rushes  (Augusti) ;  or  that  grass  shall  be  converted  into  reeds  and 
rushes  (Cocceius).  Most  writers  now,  however,  give  "l^^'H  the  sense  of 
court,  enclosure,  or  the  more  general  one  oi  place,  and  understand  the  clause 
to  mean,  that  what  was  once  the  haunt  of  wild  beasts  should  become  a  place 
for  the  growth  of  reeds  and  rushes,  which  require  a  great  degree  of  moisture, 
and  therefore  imply  an  entire  change  in  the  condition  of  the  desert.  The 
same  sense  is  given  by  Calvin  [locus  erit  arundmi  el  junco)  and  Vitringa 
(late  excrescet  calamus  etjuncits).  Knobel,  instead  of  ni'2"i,  reads  riD^**  on 
the  alleged  authority  of  the  Peshito  and  the  Vulgate  [orielur).  In  the 
haunt  of  jackals  springs  up  grass  to  (the  height  of)  reeds  and  rushes,  a 
luxuriance  of  vegetation  which  of  course  implies  excessive  moisture.  Even 
if  this  construction  of  the  particle  were  natural  and  justified  by  usage,  the 
change  in  the  text  would  still  be  inadmissible  because  unnecessary.  All 
these  interpretations  understand  the  last  clause  as  a  distinct  proposition  or 
description  of  a  change  to  be  wrought  in  the  haunts  and  lairs  of  desert 
animals.  But  Ewald  regards  the  whole  as  a  mere  description  of  the  desert 
and  continues  the  construction  into  the  next  verse.  In  the  haunt  of  jackals, 
{in)  their  lair,  [in)  the  j^lace  for  reeds  and  /•us/w?s,  even  there  shall  he  a  way, 
&c.  As  this  removes  the  difficulty  of  explaining  the  growth  of  reeds  and 
rushes  as  a  promise,  it  would  seem  to  be  entitled  to  the  preference,  but  for 
the  length  of  the  sentence  which  it  assumes  and  the  conjunction  of  the 
beginning  of  ver.  8.  These  objections  may  be  obviated,  and  the  advantages 
of  the  construction  still  secured,  by  connecting  this,  as  a  descriptive  clause, 
not  with  what  follows  but  with  what  precedes  :  fountains  shall  burst  forth  in 


40  ISAIAH  XXXV.  [Veb.  8. 

the  haunt  of  wolves,  (in)  (heir  lair  (or  resting  place),  (in)  the  court  (or  grow- 
ing-place) of  rt((U  and  rushes.  \Vo  may  then  suppose  either  that  these 
marshy  spots  are  represented  as  the  favourite  resort  of  certain  animals,  or 
that  two  distinct  descriptions  of  the  wildeniess  are  given,  first  by  describ- 
in<,'  it  as  the  resort  of  solitary  animals  and  then  as  susceptible  alike  of  culture 
and  inhabitation.  The  description,  even  if  inapplicable  strictly  to  the 
same  spot,  might  correctly  be  applied  to  different  parts  of  the  same  wilder- 
ness. The  suffix  in  nV3T  refers  not  to  r*^'<  understood  (De  Di»u),  but  to 
D*3n  as  a  pluralis  tnhumanus  (Geseuius),  or  to  each  of  the  D'^D  distribu- 
tively  (Junius  :  cubili  cujusque)  as  an  individual  of  the  feminine  gender 
(Lam.  iv.  31).  There  is  consecpiently  no  need  of  reading  D'V3">  (Kennicott), 
Y^^  (Houbigant),  nV^S  or  *V^3  (Lowth).  Gescnius  supplies  a  relative  be- 
fore n^'3"i  (^which  was  its  lair  or  where  its  lair  was)  ;  l»ut  a  much  more 
natural  construction  is  proposed  by  Maurer  and  Hitzig,  who  explain  it  as  iu 
simple  apposition  with  W'jT\  ni3.  The  explanation  which  has  now  been  given 
of  the  verse,  as  a  poetical  description  of  complete  and  joyful  change,  excludes 
of  course  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  pools  as  meaning  schools, 
and  the  fountains  teachers  (Vitringa),  the  dragon's  den  the  heathen  world 
(Schmidius),  the  dragons  themselves  persecutors,  2>a^«n  emperors  and  papal 
powers  (Gill),  the  reeds  and  rushes  persons  eminent  in  spiritual  knowledge, 
authority,  and  influence  (Cocceius).  All  these  particulars  may  be  included 
in  the  change  described,  but  none  of  them  can  be  regarded  as  specifically 
much  less  as  exclusively  intended. 

8.  The  desert  shall  cease  not  only  to  be  barren  but  also  to  be  pathless 
or  impassable  by  reason  of  sand.  And  there  shall  be  there  a  highway  and 
a  xoay  ;  and  there  shall  not  pass  through  (or  over)  it  an  unclean  {thing  or 
person)  ;  and  it  shall  be  for  them  {alone).     Job  (xii.  24)  speaks  of  a  inn 

*l"n  H?  {a  wilderness  in  which  there  is  no  way),  and  Jeremiah  (xviii.  15), 
of  a  ^?^'^0  a?  1"n  (a  way  not  cast  uji),  to  both  which  descriptions  we  have 
here  a  contrast.  The  comparison  suggested  is  between  a  faint  track  in  the 
sand  and  a  solid  artificial  causeway.  (Rosenmiiller :  via  aggerata.  Hen- 
derson :  a  raised  road.  Yatablus  :  exaltata  lapidibus.  Clericus  :  munita 
semita.)  Eighteen  manuscripts  and  several  ancient  versions  omit  T^^l, 
which  may  be  explained,  however  (with  Junius  and  Tremellius),  as  a  hen- 
diadys,  highway  and  way  for  high  way.  The  way  meant  is  explained  by 
Forerius  to  bo  Christ,  faith,  and  the  sacraments  ;  by  Gill,  a  wag  cast  up  by 
sovereign  grace,  which  is  raised  ahove  the  mire  and  dirt  of  sin,  atid  carries  over 
it  and  from  it.  Grotius,  as  usual,  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  making 
it  denote  the  way  to  the  temple.  Gatakcr  seems  to  apply  it  to  tlie  improve- 
ment of  the  roads  in  Judea.  ^lusculus  understnnds  it  as  ensuring  to  the 
exiled  Jews  a  free  return  to  their  own  countn,-.  lint  even  this  return  seems 
to  be  only  one  of  many  particular's  included  in  the  promise  of  a  general 
change  and  restoration,  which  is  really  the  thing  denoted  by  this  whole 
series  of  prophetic  figures.  On  the  form  and  import  of  the  plirase  //  shall 
be  called,  see  chap.  i.  20.  (J.  H.  Michaelis  :  vocuhitur  quia  erit.)  For  the 
wag  of  halinesx,  Clericus  substitutes  the  classical  expression,  ria  sacra. 
The  next  clause  is  parajjhrascd  by  Grotius  as  meaning  that  no  Syrian, 
Assyrian,  Ethiopian,  or  Egyi)tian,  shall  be  seen  there,  llit/ig  explains  it 
as  an  exclusion  of  the  heathen  generally,  and  pronounces  it  a  trace  of  later 
Judaism.  Knobel  goes  further,  and  describes  it  as  nn  etVusion  of  national 
hatred.  The  obvious  meaning  of  tlie  words  is  that  the  people  of  Jihovah 
shall  themselves  be  holy.     (Compare  chap.  i.  25,  iv.  8.)     This  is  iu  fact 


YEr.  9.]  ISATAH  XXXV.  -41 

the  meaning  even  of  those  Scriptures  which  exchide  from  Zion  (or  Ihe 
sanctuary)  the  Canaanite  (Zech.  xiv.  21),  the  uncircumcised  (Ezek.  xliv.  9), 
and  the  stranger  (Joel  iv.  17).     The  XIH  may  be  grammatically  construed 

either  with  ?vDD  or  with  "V"^,  which  is  sometimes  masculine.  It  shall  he 
for  is  rendered  by  Hitzig  it  hclonijs  to,  without  a  material  change  of  mean- 
ing. The  pronoun  thew,  which  has  no  expressed  antecedent  in  the  sentence, 
has  been  variously  applied  to  the  blind  whose  eyes  were  opened  (.Junius),  to 
the  saints  (Gataker),  to  Israel  (Kimchi),  to  the  exiles  (Hitzig),  to  those 
recovered  from  idolatry  (Henderson),  and  to  those  truly  reformed  by  suffer- 
ing (Ivnobel).  Barnes  and  Henderson  refer  it,  by  prolepsis,  to  DvlSJ  in 
the  next  verse.  This  is  no  doubt  substantially  correct ;  but  the  precise 
import  of  the  original  expression  seems  to  be,  that  the  highway  shall  belong 
exclusively  to  them  for  whose  sake  it  was  made,  for  whose  use  it  was  in- 
tended. A  very  different  sense  is  put  upon  this  phrase  by  Calvin,  who 
connects  it  with  what  follows,  and  translates,  et  erit  illis  (imbiilans  in  via, 
referring  NIH  to  God  himself,  and  explaining  the  whole  as  a  promise  that  he 
would  go  before  them  in  the  way  thus  prepared,  as  he  went  before  Israel  of 
old  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire.  The  same  construction  is  adopted  by 
Do  Dicu  {et  crit  ipse  illis  ambulator  via),  and  Clericus  {rrit  (jui  prior  illis 
viam  i)tgredietur),  who  applies  it  expressly  to  Christ  as  the  dux  salutis  nos- 
tr(e.  Lowth  says  that  the  old  English  versions  gave  the  same  sense,  but 
that  our  last  translators  were  misled  by  the  absurd  division  of  the  verse  in 
the  Masoretic  text,  destroying  the  construction  and  the  sense.  His  own 
version  is,  but  He  himself  shall  be  with  them,  iralkiiifj  in  the  way,  which 
he  explains  to  mean,  that  God  should  dwell  among  them,  and  set  them  an 
example  that  they  should  follow  his  steps.  Among  the  later  wTitcrs  this 
construction  is  approved  by  Dathe  and  Ewald  [und  da  er  den  We;/  ihnen 
fjeht).  The  objections  to  it,  stated  by  Gesenius,  are,  the  sense  which  it  puts 
upon  the  particle  in  1^^,  and  the  needless  violation  of  the  Masoretic  accents. 
He,  and  most  of  the  other  modern  writers,  give  precisely  the  construction 
found  in  Junius  and  Tremellius  [viator  ite  stulti  quidem  poterunt  deerrare), 
taking  IIT  ~pT\  as  equivalent  to  niN  "IDJ?  (chap,  xxxiii.  8),  and  though 
singular  in  form,  collective  in  meaning  and  construction.  The  "I  before 
Dv^lX  is  not  expletive  (Henderson),  but  exegetical  and  emphatic.  The 
meaning  strictly  is,  the  travellers  and  the  fools,  i.  e.  the  travellers,  not 
excepting  such  as  are  ignorant  or  foolish.  DvMN  is  translated  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint  disd'zao/Mitioi,  and  by  Cocceius  leves.  Gataker  explains  it  as  denoting 
simple-minded  Christians,  while  Henderson  understands  the  whole  clause 
as  a  promise,  that  the  Jewish  exiles,  hotvevrr  defective  some  of  them  might 
he  in  intellectual  energy,  should  not  fail  of  reaching  Zion.  Hendew^rk 
comes  nearer  to  the  full  sense  of  the  words,  which  he  explains  to  mean  that 
only  moral  impurity,  not  ignorance  or  weakness,  should  exclude  men  from 
this  highway.  But  the  words,  in  their  primary'  and  strict  sense,  are  de- 
scriptive, not  of  the  travellers,  but  of  the  way  itself,  which  should  not  be  a 
laint  or  dubious  tack  through  shifting  sands,  but  a  highway  so  distinctly 
marked  that  even'tlie  most  ignorant  and  inexperienced  could  not  miss  it. 
The  straightness  or  directness  of  the  path,  which  Grotius  and  Kosenmiiller 
make  a  prominent  idea,  may  be  implied,  but  is  not  expressed. 

9.  The  wilderness,  though  no  longer  barren  or  pathless,  might  still  be 
the  resort  of  beasts  of  prey.  The  promised  highway  might  itself  be  exposed 
to  their  incursions.  But  immunity  from  this  inconvenience  is  here  promised. 
llicrc  shall  not  he  there  a  lion,  and  a  ravenoxis  heast  shall  not  ascend  it,  nor 


42  ISAIAH  XXXV.  ,Ver.  10. 

be  found  there  ;  and  {there)  shall  walk  redeemed  {ones).  For  a  pimilar 
promise,  in  a  still  more  figurative  dress,  see  Hosea  ii.  18,  and  for  a  doscrip- 
tion  of  the  desert  as  the  home  of  deadly  animals,  Isaiah  xxx.  6.  Hende- 
werk  refers  there  and  it  to  the  desert,  Hitzig  and  others  to  the  way.  Both 
are  cousisteut  with  the  context,  which  descrihes  all  the  inconveniences  and 
dangers  of  the  desert  as  removed  ;  but  in  this  place  the  primary  allusion  is 
no  doubt  to  the  highway  described  in  the  foregoing  verse.  Hence  the 
phrase  ascend  it,  i.  c.  from  the  level  of  the  sands,  through  which  the  road  is 
supposed  to  be  cast  up.  This  precludes  the  necessity  of  referring,  with 
Gesenius,  to  the  use  of  this  verb  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  reference  to  the 
journej'  from  Babylon,  or  by  Job  in  reference  to  the  wilderness  itself  as 
higher  than  the  cultivated  country  (Job  vi.  18).  Lowth  seems  to  take  P'lS 
rivn  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  lion  {th".  tyrant  of  the  beasts).  But  the 
first  word  is  an  adjective  denoting  violent,  rapacious,  ravenous,  destructive, 
deadly.  It  is  translated  as  a  simple  case  of  concord  by  the  Vulgate  {mala 
leslia),  Luther  {reissendes  Thier),  TremelUus  {violenta  /era),  the  English 
Bible  {ravenous  least),  and  Henderson  {destructive  lea^l).  The  original 
construction  is  retained  by  Cocceius  {vioUnta  ferarum),  while  KnoLel  sup- 
plies a  preposition  {ein  zerreissendes  unter  ihnen),  and  Ewald  makes  it  a 
direct  superlative  {das  i/eualtsumstc  dcr  Thiere).  These  terms  are  applied 
by  the  Targimi  to  persecuting  kings  and  rulers,  by  Jarchi  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
in  particular,  by  Junius  to  the  enemies  of  the  church,  and  by  Augusti  to 
the  avenger  of  blood.  But  they  are  rather  intended  to  complete  the  great 
prophetic  picture  of  a  total  change  in  the  condition  of  the  desert,  under 
which  general  idea  we  may  then  include  a  great  variety  of  suitable  particu- 
lars, without,  however,  making  any  one  of  them  the  exclusive  subject  of  the 
prophecy.  The  feminine  verb  NVDH  is  well  explained  by  Knobel,  as  agree- 
ing in  form  with  nvn,  and  in  sense  with  P"iB.  There  is  no  need,  there- 
fore, of  reading  N^'D'  with  Lowth  on  the  authority  of  four  Hebrew 
manuscripts.  Knobel  gives  DvlNJ  its  original  and  proper  sense  of  boutfht 
back,  i.  e.  out  of  the  bondage  into  which  they  had  been  sulil.  Most  other 
writers  give  it  the  more  general  meaning  free<l  or  delivered.  Junius : 
vindicati.  Cocceius  :  o.tserli.  Barnes  understands  it  in  a  double  sense, 
as  expressive  both  of  temporal  and  spiritual  redemption.  Augusti  refers  it 
to  the  avenger  of  blood,  whom  he  supposes  to  be  mentioned  in  the  other 
clause  {ron  ihm  gesichert  xo'indelt  man  hin).  Calvin  constnies  13^'^^  as  a 
subjunctive  {ut  redemjAi  ambulent.)  Vitringa  makes  the  last  clause  a  dis- 
tinct proposition,  or  ruthcr  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse  {et  ibunt  oKSeitt, 
et  redemjdi,  Ac).  Ewald  adopts  a  construction  somewhat  similar  {io  gchen 
sie  erlijst,  und  Jahves  losgckuujlc  u.  s.  w.).  There  is  no  need,  however,  of 
departing  from  the  simpler  and  more  usual  construction,  which  connects  it 
closely  with  what  goes  before,  supplying  there  as  in  the  English  Bible  {the 
redeemed  xh'iU  w  dk  there),  and  onli/  as  in  the  version  of  Gesenius  {uur 
JEJrlv.ste  gchen  dort). 

10.  The  whole  series  of  promises  is  hero  summed  up  in  that  of  restoration 
and  complete  redemption.  And  the  ransomed  of  Jehornh  shall  return  and 
come  to  Zio)i  uith  shouting,  and  everlasting  jog  upon  their  head ;  gladness 
and  joy  shall  overtake  {them),  and  sorrow  and  sighing  shall  flee  away.  The 
first  phrase,  which  is  no  doubt  equivalent  in  meaning  to  Dv1X3  in  ver.  9,  is 
paraphrased  as  follows  in  one  of  the  French  versions  :  ceujc-la  desquels 
rj'Jternel  aura  page  hi  ranroii.  The  connection  with  the  preceding  context 
is  needlessly  though  not  erroneously  expressed  in  some  versions  by  trans- 
lating the  initial  particle  yea  (Lowth),  so  (J.  U.  Michaclis),  or  therefore 


ISAIAH  XXXVI.  43 

(Calvin).  Zion  is  mentioned  as  the  journey's  end  ;  they  shall  not  only 
move  towards  it  but  attain  it.  The  words  everluHthvi  joy  may  either  be 
governed  by  the  preposition  {nith  shonting  and  ewrlastiny  joij  upon  their 
head),  or  construed  with  the  substantive  verb  understood  (everlasting  jog 
shall  be  upon  their  head).  The  latter  construction  seems  to  agree  best  with 
the  Masoretic  accents.  Jarchi  understands  by  u^W  r\n'Cli>  ancient  joy,  or 
the  joy  of  old  ;  but  more  seems  to  be  promised.  The  Chaldee  ParapLraso 
supposes  the  image  here  presented  to  be  that  of  a  cloud  of  glory  ei'compas- 
sing  the  head,  or  tloating  over  it.  Gataker  and  Lowth  suppose  an  allusion 
to  a  crown  or  wreath,  and  Umbreit  to  a  sacerdotal  crown  particularly. 
Vitringa,  Gill,  and  Rosenmiiller  understand  the  Prophet  as  alluding  to  the 
festal  use  of  unguents  (seePs.  xlv.  8  ;  Ecclos.  ix.  8  ;  Luke  vii.  4G).  Paulus 
combines  the  figure  of  a  crown  with  that  of  unction.  Gesenius,  Maurer, 
and  Knobel  explain  joy  upon  the  head  as  meaning  its  expression  in  the 
countenance.  According  to  Sanctins,  head  is  put  for  person,  or  the  whole 
body,  which  seems  altogether  arbitrary.  Clericus  explains  the  clause  to 
mean  that  joy  shall  be  at  the  head,  i.  e.  march  before  them.  It  deserves  to 
be  recorded,  as  a  monstruni  interpretaiionis,  that  Forerius  supposes  an 
allusion  to  the  washerwomen's  practice  of  carrying  clothes  upon  their  heads. 
In  the  last  clause,  joy  and  gladness  ma}'  be  either  the  subject  or  the  object 
of  the  verb.  The  later  construction  is  given  in  the  English  liible  [they 
shall  obtain  joy  and  gladness)  after  the  example  of  the  Targum,  Peshito, 
and  Vulgate.  In  favour  of  the  other,  which  is  given  in  the  Septuagint 
(xaray.Tj-^iTui  airoiic),  may  be  urged  the  analogy  of  Deut.  xxviii.  2  (edl 
these  blessings  shall  come  on  thee  and  overtake  thee),  and  of  the  last  clause  of 
the  verse,  where  sorrow  and  sighing  are  allowed  to  be  the  subjects  of  the 
verb  by  all  except  Cocceius,  who  consistently  translates  it,  shall  escape 
sorrow  and  sighing.  The  figures  of  this  verse  are  applied  to  the  return 
from  exile  by  the  Targum  [from  the  midst  of  their  captivity),  Henderson 
thinks  that  deliverance  not  too  trivial  to  be  thus  described,  and  Junius 
applies  it  in  a  wider  sense  to  the  reception  of  converts  into  the  church. 
Calvin  extends  it  to  the  whole  course  of  life  and  to  its  close.  The  Talmud 
applies  it  to  the  world  to  come,  and  Gill  says  that  "  the  highway  before 
described  not  only  leads  to  Zion,  the  church  below,  but  to  the  Zion  above,  to 
the  heavenly  glory  ;  and  all  the  redeemed,  all  that  walk  in  this  way,  shall 
come  thither ;  at  death  their  souls  return  to  God  that  gave  them,  and  in 
the  resurrection  their  bodies  shall  return  from  their  dusty  beds  and  appear 
before  God  in  Zion."  The  allusions  to  the  Babylonian  exile  are  correctly 
explained  by  Barnes  upon  the  principle  that  minor  and  temporal  deliver- 
ances were  not  only  emblems  of  the  great  salvation,  but  preparatory'  to  it. 
The  devout  Yitringa  closes  his  exposition  of  the  cheering  promise,  with 
which  Isaiah  winds  up  the  first  gi-eat  division  of  his  prophecies,  by  exclaim- 
ing to  his  reader,  Ora  mecum  Dominum  supplex,  ut  cam  suo  tempore  propi- 
tius  impleat  ;  interim  credens  non  festinabit. 


CHAPTEE  XXXVI. 

The  next  foui*  chapters  contain  a  historical  appendix  to  the  first  part  of 
Ifaiali's  prophecies,  relating  chiefly  to  Sennacherib's  invasion  and  the 
slaughter  of  his  host,  to  Hezekiah's  sickness  and  miraculous  recovery,  and 
to  the  friendly  intercourse  between  him  and  the  king  of  Babylon.  The 
same  narrative  is  found  substantially  in  the  second  book  of  Kings  (chaps. 


44  JSAIAJI  XSXVJ. 

xviii.-xx.).  niul  u.  difforent  account  of  the  same  matter  in  the  second  book 
of  Chronicles  (chnp.  xxxii.).  The  close  reseiuldance  of  the  former  passage 
to  the  one  before  us  lias  all'orded  full  scope  to  the  German  appetite  for 
crilical  conjecture  and  inj^'enious  combination.  Paulns  and  Heudewcrk 
adhere  to  the  old  oi)iniou  of  Grotius  and  Vitrin;,'a,  that  the  narrative  in 
Kiuf^s  is  a  varied  transcript  of  the  one  in  Isaiah  ;  but  Eichhorn,  Gcscnius, 
Miiurer,  and  De  Wettc  regard  the  latter  as  an  addition,  by  the  hand  of  a 
compiler,  to  the  collection  of  Isaiah's  prophecies,  abridged  and  otherwise 
altered  from  tho  book  of  Kings;  while  Koppe,  lloseinniiller,  Hit/.ig,  I'mbreit 
and  Knobel  consider  the  two  naiTatives  as  parallel  or  collateral  abridgments, 
made  by  different  writers,  from  the  same  original,  \iz.,  a  more  extended  his- 
tory, DO  longer  in  existence.  This  last  hypothesis  is  founded  on  the  diffi- 
culty of  maintaining  either  of  the  others,  a  difficulty  springing  from  the 
fact  that  neither  of  the  passages  sustains,  in  all  respects,  the  character  of 
an  original  or  an  abridgment.  Each  contains  matter  which  is  n(»t  found  in 
the  other,  and  although  Gesenius  and  Knolnl  have  endeavoured  to  demon- 
strate that  the  diction,  jihraseologv-,  grammatical  sti-ucture,  and  even  the 
orthography  of  the  passage  before  us,  are  symptomatic  of  a  later  origin, 
neither  the  principle  which  they  assume,  nor  its  specific  application  here,  is 
so  unquestionable  as  to  satisfy  the  mind  of  any  ordinary  reader,  in  default 
of  more  conclusive  evidence.  The  particular  points  included  in  this  general 
statement  will  be  noticed  in  the  exposition.  From  the  strong  resemblance 
of  the  passages,  and  the  impossibility  of  fixing  upon  either  as  the  more 
ancient  and  authentic  of  the  two,  the  natural  inference  would  seem  to  be, 
that  they  are  different  draughts  or  copies  of  the  same  composition,  or  at 
least  that  they  are  both  the  work  of  the  same  ^^Titcr,  and  that  this  writer  is 
Isaiah.  That  the  prophets  often  acted  as  historiographers,  and  that  Isaiah 
in  particular  discharged  this  office,  are  recorded  facts.  Nothing  can  be 
more  natural,  therefore,  than  the  supposition  that  he  in>^erted  the  same 
narrative  in  one  book  as  a  part  of  the  chronicle  of  Judah,  and  in  the  other 
as  an  illustrative  appendix  to  his  earlier  prophecies.  To  what  extent  this 
would  make  him  the  author  of  the  books  of  Kings  is  here  a  question  of  but 
little  moment.  Whether  these  are  to  be  regarded  as  complete  compositions 
of  particular  authors,  or  as  continuous  otiicial  records,  formed  by  successive 
entries,  or  as  abstracts  of  such  records  made  for  pennanent  preservation, 
the  supposition  that  he  wrote  both  passages  is  equally  admissible.  As  to 
the  variations  of  the  two  from  one  another,  they  arc  precisely  such  as 
might  have  been  expected  in  the  case  supposed,  that  is  to  say.  in  the  case 
of  the  same  writer  twice  recording  the  same  facts,  especially  if  we  assume 
an  interval  between  the  acts,  and  a  more  specific  purpose  in  the  one  case 
than  the  other.  It  must  also  be  considered  that  on  this  hypothesis,  the 
writer  expected  both  accounts  to  be  within  the  nach  of  the  same  readers, 
and  might  therefore  leave  them  to  illustrate  and  complete  each  other. 
That  there  is  nothing  in  these  variations  to  forbid  the  supposition  of  their 
being  from  the  same  pen,  is  evinced  by  the  circumstance  tliat  each  of  the 
parallels  has  bei  n  declared,  for  similar  reasons,  and  with  eqiial  confidence, 
to  be  a  transcript  of  the  other.  Against  the  supposition  that  Isiiah  is  the 
author  of  both  or  either,  even  Gennan  ingenuity  and  learning  havo  been 
able  to  adduce  no  better  arguments  than  one  or  two  llimsy  philological 
cavils,  such  as  the  nsc  of  Jtui.sh  in  chap,  xxxvi.  11,  and  some  others 
which  will  bo  particularly  mentioned  in  the  exposition,  together  with  the 
usual  objections  founded  on  the  assumed  impossibility  of  miracles  and  inspi- 
ration.    Thus  the  recession  of  the  shadow,  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's 


Yeh.  1.]  ISAIAH  XXXVI.  '  45 

anny,  the  prediction  of  his  own  death,  and  of  the  length  of  Hezekiah's  life, 
are  all  alleged  with  great  naivete  hy  the  infidel  interpreters  as  proofs  that 
these  chapters  are  of  later  date,  whereas  they  only  prove  that  their  writer 
was  a  prophet  sent  from  God.  The  simple  common- sense  view  of  the 
matter  is,  that  since  the  traditional  position  of  these  chapters  among  the 
writings  of  Isaiah  corresponds  exactly  to  the  known  fact  of  his  having 
written  a  pai't  of  the  history  of  Judah,  the  presumption  in  favour  of  his 
having  written  hoth  the  passages  in  question  cannot  be  shaken  by  the  mere 
possibility,  or  even  the  intrinsic  probability  of  other  hypotheses,  for  which 
there  is  not  the  least  external  evidence.  The  specific  end,  for  which  the 
narrative  is  here  appended  to  tbe  foregoing  prophecies,  appears  to  be  that 
of  shewing  the  fulfilment  of  certain  prophecies  which  had  relation  to  a 
proximate  futurity,  and  thereby  gaining  credence  and  authority  for  those 
which  had  a  wider  scope  and  a  remoter  combination. 

1.  And  it  was  (or  came  to  pass)  in  the  fourteenth  ijear  of  the  Jdrnj  Ileze- 
kiuh,  Sennacherib  kinff  of  Assyria  came  u}>  ar/ainst  all  tlie  fenced  (or  forti- 
fied) cities  of  Judah,  and  look  them.      The  parallel  passage  in  Kings  is 
immediately  preceded  by  a  summary  account  of  the  earlier  events  of  Heze- 
kiah's reign,  with  particular  mention  of  his  religious  reformations  and  his 
extirpation  of  idolatry,  to  which  is  added  an  account  of  the  deportation  of 
the  ten  tribes  by  Shalmaneser  (2  Kings  xviii.  1-12).     This  visitation  is 
referred  to  the  apostasy  of  Israel  as  its  meritorious  cause,  and  contrasted 
with  the  favour  of  the  Lord   to  Hezekiah  as  a  faithful   servant.     While 
Ephraim  was  carried  away  never  to  return,  Judah  was  only  subjected  to  a 
temporar}'  chastisement,  the   record  of  which   follows.     The  verse  which 
directly  corresponds  to  that  before  us   (2  Kings  x\-iii.   13)   diti'ers  from   it 
only  in  the  omission   of  the   idiomatic   formula   ^T1.      The  statement  in 
Chronicles  (xxxii.  1)  is,  that  he  entered  into  Judah  and  encamped  against 
the  fortified  cities  and  proposed  pOXM)  to  subdue  them  to  himself.     The 
same  restricted  sense  is  put  by  some  interpreters  upon  the  stronger  phrase 
(and  took  them)  which  Isaiah  uses.     Others,  with  the  same  view,  limit  the 
meaning  of  the  word  all  before  cities.    Gesenius  understands  the  cities  here 
meant  to  be  those  which  llehoboam  fortified  (2   Chron.  xi.  5-12).     Sen- 
nacherib is  mentioned,  under  nearly  the  same  name,  b}'  Herodotus,  who  calls 
him  the  king  of  Assyria  and  Arabia.     This  may  either  be  accounted  for,  as  an 
example  of  the  loose  geographical  distinctions  of  the  ancient  writers,  or  as 
implying  that  the  Assyrian   conquests  really  included  certain  portions  of 
Arabia.     Between  this  verse  and  the  next,  as  they  stand  in  Isaiah,  the 
narrative   in  Kings   inserts  three   others,  which   relate  what  immediately 
followed  the  invasion  of  the  country,  and  preceded  the  attack  upon  Jeru- 
salem.  The  substance  of  this  statement  is  that  Hezekiah  sent  to  Sennacherib 
at  Lachish,  saying,  I  have  ofi'ended  (/.  e.  in  renouncing  his  allegiance  to 
Assyria),  return  from  me,  that  which  thou  puttest  on  me  I  will  bear;  that 
Sennacherib  accordingl}'  imposed  a  tribute  of  three  hundred  talents  of  silver 
and  thirty  of  gold,  to  pay  which  Hezekiah  gave  him  all  the  treasures  of  the 
palace  and  the  temple,  not  excepting  the  metallic  decorations  of  the  doors 
and  pillars  (2  Kings  xviii.  14-10).     This  last  act  seems  to  be  entirely  in- 
consistent with  the  view  which  Calvin  takes  of  Hezekiah's  conduct  in  this 
whole  transaction  as  entirely  innocent  and  laudable,  evincing  a  pacific  dis- 
position and  a  willingness  to  purchase  peace  at  any  price.    He  seems  indeed 
to  have  been  disposed  to  buy  it  far  too  dearly  when  he  stripped  the  house  of 
God  to  pay  for  it,  an  act  which  certainly  implies  distrust  of  the  divine  pro- 
tection.    There  is  nothing,  either  in  the  case  before  us,  or  in  the  general 


46  ISAIAH  XXXVI.  [Veb.  2,  8. 

analogy  of  Scripture,  to  forbid  the  supposition,  that  the  narrative  was 
intended  to  exhibit  the  weakness  no  less  than  the  strength  of  Hezekiah's 
faith,  in  which  case  there  is  no  need  of  laboriously  vindicating  all  his  acta 
as  perfectly  consistent  with  a  strong  and  lively  faith,  although  his  general 
sincerity  and  godliness  cannot  be  questioned.  Another  addition  to  the 
narrative  is  found  in  the  second  book  of  Chronicles  (xx)di.  1-8),  where  we 
read  that  Hezekiiih,  when  he  saw  that  Sennacherib  was  come,  and  that  his 
face  was  towards  Jerusalem  for  war,  took  measures  to  strengthen  the 
defences  of  the  city,  and  to  cut  off  the  supply  of  water  from  the  enemy, 
while  at  the  same  time  he  encouraged  the  people  to  rely  upon  Jehovah,  and 
not  to  be  afraid  of  the  Assyrian  host.  All  this  is  spoken  of  as  having  taken 
place  before  what  is  recorded  in  the  next  verse  of  the  chapter  now  before  us. 
If  we  suppose  it  to  have  followed  Hezeldah's  message  to  Sennacherib  and 
payment  of  the  trilmte,  the  inference  would  seem  to  be  that  the  invader, 
having  received  the  money,  still  appeared  disposed  to  march  upon  the  Holy 
City,  whereupon  the  king  abandoned  all  hope  of  conciliation,  and  threw 
himself  without  reserve  on  the  divine  protection. 

2.  And  the  khuj  of  Assyria  sent  Mabshaheh/rom  Lachish  to  Jerusalem, 
to  king  Eezckinh,  with  a  strung  force,  and  lie  stood  by  the  conduit  (or  aque- 
duct) of  the  upper  pool,  in  the  highway  of  the  fuller  s  field.  Besides  Rab- 
shakch,  the  nanative  in  Kings  mentions  Tartan  and  Rabsaris ;  that  in 
Chronicles  uses  the  general  expression  his  servants.  Rabshakeh  may  be 
named  alone  here  as  the  chief  speaker,  or  as  the  commander  of  the  expedi- 
tion. The  Jews  have  a  tradition  that  he  was  a  renegado  or  apostate  Jew, 
and  one  absurd  story  makes  him  out  to  have  been  a  son  of  Isaiah.  Others 
account  for  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  by  supposing  him  to  have  acquired  it 
by  intercourse  with  captives  of  the  ten  tribes.  Lachish  was  a  town  of 
Judah,  south-west  of  Jerusalem  on  the  way  to  Egypt.  This  place  Sen- 
nacherib was  now  besieging  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  9),  and  being  probably  detained 
longer  than  he  had  expected,  he  detached  a  part  of  his  forces  to  attack 
Jerusalem,  or  rather  to  summon  Hezekiah  to  surrender.  That  the  main 
body  of  the  army  afterwards  advanced  against  Jerusalem  is  nowhere  expli- 
citly recorded,  although  some  infer  from  chap.  x.  28-32  that  they  did  so, 
making  a  circuit  to  the  north  for  the  purpose  of  sin-prising  the  city.  It  is 
said  in  Chronicles  that  Sennacherib  was  now  before  Lachish,  in  the  military 
sense,  i.  e.  besieging  it,  uith  nil  his  force,  which  some  explain  to  mean  uiih 
a  large  jiart  of  il,  others  »///i  his  court,  and  the  usual  accompaniments  of  an 
Eastern  camp,  in  order  to  remove  a  supposed  inconsistency  with  what  is 
here  said.  13iit  the  phrase  in  Chronicles  relates  to  the  Assyrian  force  at 
Lachish  before  llubshakeh  was  detached,  and  is  inserted  merely  to  explain 
the  statement  that  he  came  /Vo»«  Lachish,  because  Sennaclierib  had  halted 
there  with  all  his  army.  The  verb  I^V'  may  also  be  referred  to  the  halt  of 
Rabshakeh's  detachment,  or  to  the  position  which  they  took  up  on  arriving  ; 
but  it  is  simpler  to  refer  it  to  the  spot  on  which  Rabshakeh  himself  stood 
during  the  interview  about  to  bo  described.  The  spot  was  doubtless  one  of 
great  resort.  For  the  localities  here  mentioned,  see  the  notes  on  chap.  vii. 
y,  and  xxii.  9-11.  The  verso  in  Kings,  which  corresponds  to  this,  is  more 
redundant  in  expression,  from  wliich  Geseniiis  infers  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  it  is  the  original  and  this  the  copy,  as  if  amplification  were  not  as  easy 
as  abridgment. 

3.  Then  came  forth  unto  him  JCliakim,  Jlilkiah^s  son,  uho  uns  ov«r  the 
house,  and  Shebna  the  scribe,  and  Joah,  Asaph's  son,  the  recorder.  The 
parallel  narrative  (2  ICings  xviii.  18)  prefixes  to  this  verse  a  statement  that 


Ver.  4-6.]  ISAIAH  XXXVI.  47 

he  called  to  (or  for)  the  king,  in  answer  to  which  summons  these  three 
ministers  came  out.  Eliukim  here  appears  as  Shebna's  successor,  according 
to  the  prophecy  in  chap.  xxii.  20,  and  Shebna  himself  as  an  inferior  office- 
bearer. Interpreters  have  amused  thems'jlves  with  trying  to  discover  equiva- 
lents in  modern  parlance  for  these  three  official  titles,  such  as  chamberlain, 
steward,  major-domo,  secretar}',  master  of  requests,  master  of  the  rolls, 
historiographer,  &c.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  they  probably  denote  three 
principal  officers  of  state,  or  of  the  royal  household,  which  in  oriental 
goveruments  is  very  much  the  same  thing.  Clericus,  in  his  version  of  this 
sentence,  omits  the  name  of  Joali,  and  then  notes  it  as  an  error  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  to  be  corrected  by  a  comparison  with  2  Kings  xviii.  18. 

4.  And  liabshah'h  said  to  them:  Say  noio  (or  if  you  please)  to  Ilezekiah, 
Thus  saith  the  great  king,  the  king  of  Assyria,  JJluit  is  this  confidence  which 
thou  coi'fidcst  in?  He  expresses  his  contempt  by  withholding  the  name  of 
liing  from  Hezekiah  and  calling  his  own  master  the  great  king,  a  common 
title  of  the  Persian  and  other  oriental  mouarchs,  corresponding  to  Grand 
Seignior,  Gravid  Monarque,  and  Emperor  as  a  distinctive  royal  title.  The 
interrogation  in  the  last  clause  implies  surprise  and  scorn  at  a  reliance  so 
unfounded.  Cc»yjf?e  and  con/fc/en a' sustain  the  same  etymological  relation 
to  each  other  as  the  Hebrew  noun  and  verb. 

5.  I  say  (or  have  said),  only  word  of  lips,  counsel  and  strength  for  ihe  war; 
now  on  whom  hast  thou  confided,  that  thou  hast  rebelled  against  me?  Tho 
parallel  passage  in  Kings  has  thou  hast  said,  which  Lowth  assumes  to  be 
the  true  text  here,  while  others  treat  the  common  reading  as  an  error  of  the 
writer  or  abridger.  It  is  much  easier,  however,  to  account  for  J?!^^  ''^^ 
having  arisen  from  Pl"l^X  a  defective  orthography  for  ^^^7^^^'  ^^^"  ^^  deduce 
the  latter  from  the  former.  The  trath  no  doubt  is  that  both  the  readings 
are  original,  since  both  may  be  so  explained  as  to  express  the  same  idea. 
Many  interpreters  regard  what  follows  as  a  parenthesis  [it  is  only  word 
of  lips,  i.  e.  mere  talk).  Others  make  it  interrogative  [is  mere  talk  counsel 
and  strength  for  the  war?).  Others  suppose  an  ellipisis  in  each  mamber  (/ 
say  you  have  only  word  of  lips,  but  there  is  need  of  counsel  and  strength  for 
the  war).  The  simplest  construction  is  :  I  say,  mere  word  uf  lips  is  [your) 
counsel  and  strength  for  the  war,  i.  e.  your  pretended  strength  and  wisdom 
are  mere  talk,  false  pretension.  The  allusion  is  not  so  much  to  Hezekiah!s 
prayers  (Kimehi)  as  to  his  addresses  to  the  people,  recorded  in  2  Chron. 
xxxii.  6-8.  The  sense  of  the  other  passage  (2  Kings  xviii.  20)  seems  to 
he,  thou  hast  said  (to  thyself,  or  thought,  that)  mere  talk  is  counsel  and. 
strength  for  the  war.  The  contemptuous  import  of  DTlSl^  "I3T  is  apparent 
from  Prov.  xiv.  23.  The  rebellion  mentioned  in  the  last  clause  is  Hezekiah's 
casting  off  the  Assyrian  yoke  (2  Kings  xviii.  7). 

6.  Behold,  thou  hast  trusted  in  the  staff  [ov  support)  of  this  broken  reed, 
in  Egypt,  which,  [if)  a  man  lean  upon  it,  will  go  into  his  hand  and  pierce 
it ;  so  is  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt  to  all  those  trusting  in  him.  He  answers 
his  own  question.  The  charge  of  relying  upon  Egypt  may  be  either 
regarded  as  a  true  one,  or  as  a  malicious  fabrication,  or  as  a  mere  infer- 
ence from  the  analogy  of  other  cases  and  the  habitual  relation  of  the 
parties.  Egypt  may  be  called  a  broken  reed,  either  as  being  always  weak, 
or  in  allusion  to  what  it  had  already  suffered  from  Assyria.  Broken  of 
course  does  not  mean  entirely  divided,  but  so  bruised  or  shattered  as  to 
yield  no  firm  support  but  rather  to  do  injury.  (See  chap.  xlii.  3,  below.) 
Neither  Gesenius  nor  any  other  critic  seems  to  consider  D^"lX?3  ?]}  as  a 
gloss,  a  strong  proof  that  such  explanatory  clauses  are  not  quite  so  uu- 


48  ISAIAH  XXXVI.  ,Vkr.  7-11. 

natural  as  they  are  elsowbere  represented.      (See  the  notes  on  chaps. 
vii.  17,  viii.  7.) 

7.  And  if  thou  say  to  me,  Jf'e  trmt  in  Jehorah  our  God,  in  it  not  he  uhose 
high  places  and  uhvsc  altars  Ilezekiah  hath  taken  auay,  and  aaid  to  Judah 
and  to  Jerusalem,  Jiifure  this  altar  shall  i/c  Udrship.  The  parallel  jjassago 
(2  Kings  xviii.  22)  has  t/e  say  in  the  plural,  which  Gcseuius  rcf,'artls  as 
the  original  and  proper  form,  because  Ilczekiah  is  aflenvards  mentioned  in 
the  third  person.  lUit  what  theu  Lecomes  of  the  favourite  critical  canon, 
that  the  more  difhcult  reading  is  commonly  the  true  one,  or  of  the  allega- 
tion that  tlie  author  of  the  text  before  us  is  proved  to  be  a  copyist  by  his 
disposition  to  remove  irregularities  and  make  the  form  of  expression  uni- 
form ?  Kabshakch's  questiou  evidently  refers  to  Hezekiah's  reformation 
of  religious  worship  (2  Kings  xnii.  4),  which  he  erroneously  regarded  as  a 
change  of  the  national  religion.  The  parallel  passage  adds,  at  tlie  end  of 
the  sentence,  in  Jerusalem,  which  is  just  as  likely  to  have  been  added  in 
the  one  copy,  as  to  have  been  omitted  in  the  other. 

8.  And  now,  engage,  I  pray  thee,  tcith  my  lord  the  Icing  of  Assyria,  and 
I  ic ill  give  thee  tuo  thousand  horses,  if  thou  be  able  on  thy  part  to  set  riders 
upon  them.  A  contemptuous  comparison  between  the  Jews,  who  were 
almost  destitute  of  cavalry,  and  the  Assyrians,  who  were  strong  in  that 
species  of  force  (chap.  v.  28).  2"iynn  is  not  to  uager,  or  to  give  ]>ledges, 
but  simply  to  engage  uiih  ;  whether  in  fight  or  in  negotiation,  must  be  deter- 
mined by  the  context. 

9.  And  huic  uilt  thou  turn  auay  the  face  of  one  governor  (or  satrap)  of 
the  least  of  my  master's  servants'^  So  thou  hast  reposed  thyself  on  Lgypt, 
u-ith  respect  to  chariots  and  horses.  As  a  man  is  said  to  turn  his  face  to- 
wards an  object  of  attack,  so  the  latter  may  be  said  to  turn  back  (or  away) 
the  face  of  his  assailant  when  he  repels  him.  The  last  clause  is  an  infer- 
ence from  the  first,  as  the  first  is  from  the  foregoing  verse.  If  Hczekiah 
could  not  command  two  thousand  horsemen,  he  was  unprepared  to  resist 
even  a  detachment  of  the  Assyrian  force,  and  if  thus  helpless,  he  must  be 
trusting,  not  in  his  own  resources,  but  in  foreign  aid. 

10.  And  now  {is  it)  without  Jehovah  I  have  come  up  against  this  land  to 
destroy  it  ?  Jehovah  said  to  me.  Go  up  to  (or  against)  this  land  and  destroy 
it.  Some  interpreters  suppose  that  the  Assyrians  had  heard  of  prophecies, 
in  which  they  were  described  as  instruments  by  which  Jehovah  meant  to 
punish  his  own  people.  It  is  much  more  natural,  however,  to  regard  this 
as  a  bold  attempt  to  terrify  the  Jews  by  pleading  the  authority  of  their 
own  tutelary  deity  for  this  invasion.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings 
xviii.  25)  has  place  instead  of  the  first  land,  a  clear  case,  as  Knobel  ima- 
gines, of  assimilation  on  the  part  of  the  transcriber.  lUit  no  such  infer- 
ence was  drawn  from  the  opposite  appearance  in  ver.  7,  nor  is  any  aitempt 
made  to  explain  why  the  ^V  and       were  not  assimilated  also. 

11.  Then  said  J\lialim,  and  Shebna,  and  Joah,  unto  Jtabshaleh,  Pray 
speak  unto  thy  servants  in  Aramean,  for  tee  understand  {it],  and  speak 
not  to  us  in  Jewish,  in  the  ears  if  the  people  who  {are)  on  the  wall.  This 
request  implies  an  apprehension  of  the  bad  effect  of  his  address  upon  the 
multitude.  Aramean  corresponds  ver}'  nearly  to  Syri<in  in  latitude  of 
meaning  ;  but  the  language  meant  is  not  what  we  call  Syriac,  but  an  older 
form,  which  was  probably  current,  as  the  French  is  now,  at  the  courts  and 
among  the  educated  classes  of  an  ext^-nsive  region.  Jewish  is  llthrew,  so 
called  by  the  Jews,  as  the  language  of  the  whole  British  empire  is  called 
English,  or  as  German  is  sometimes  called  Saxon.     The  use  of  this  term 


Ver.  12-15.J  ISAIAH  XXXVI.  49 

here  is  ur<,'ed  by  some  as  a  proof  of  later  date  than  the  time  of  Isaiah,  on 
the  ground  that  the  distinctive  namie  Jewish  could  not  have  been  common 
till  long  after  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  left 
Judah  the  only  representative  of  Israel.  But  how  long  after  this  event 
may  wo  assume  that  such  a  usage  became  common  ?  The  ten  tribes  were 
carried  into  exile  by  Sennacherib's  father,  if  not  by  his  grandfather.  It  is 
altogether  probable  that  from  the  time  of  the  gi'eat  schism  between 
Ephraim  and  Judah,  the  latter  began  to  call  the  national  language  by  its 
own  distinctive  name.  At  the  period  in  question,  such  a  designation  was 
certainly  more  natural  in  the  mouths  of  Jews,  than  laraelitish  or  even 
Ilehretv.  We  xuulcrstand,  literally,  ice  (are)  heanii;/,  i.  e.  hearing  distinctly 
and  intelligently. 

12.  Atid  Rahnhakeh  mid:  Is  it  to  thy  master  and  to  thee,  that  my  master 
hath  ftetit  me  to  speak  these  words  ?  Is  it  not  to  the  men  sitting  on  the  wall 
to  eat  their  own  dung  and  to  drink  their  oicn  water  with  you  ?  The  last 
clause  might  seem  to  mean,  is  it  not  appointed  to  them,  necesffary  for  them, 
or  are  they  not  doomed  ?  &c.  But  since  ^V  is  used  in  the  parallel  passage 
(2  Kings  xviii.  27)  after  n?lif  as  a  simple  equivalent  to  ?N,  it  is  better  to 
repeat  the  verb  of  the  first  clause  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  :  has  he 
not  sent  me  /  The  last  clause  is  obviously  descripiive  of  the  horrors  of 
famine  in  their  most  revolting  form.  The  same  idea  is  conveyed  still 
more  distinctly  in  Chronicles :  "  Whereon  do  yc  trust  that  ye  abide  in  the 
fortress  of  Jerusalem  '?  doth  not  Hezekiah  persuade  you  to  give  over  your- 
selves 'to  die  by  famine  and  by  thirst,  saying,  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
deliver  us  out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria?  "  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  10, 11). 
So  here  the  people  are  described  as  sitting  on  the  wall,  /.  e.  holding  out 
against  Sennacherib,  only  that  they  may  experience  these  horrors.  The 
Masoretic  readings  in  the  margin  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  are  mere  euphemistic 
variations.  I^nx  might  seem  to  mean  thy  masters,  as  the  singular  )iiy 
master  is  expressed  in  the  same  sentence  by  its  proper  form.  But  the 
fact  is  that  the  singular  |1"I5^  is  never  joined  with  any  suflixes  but  those  of 
the  first  person.  The  only  form,  therefore,  in  which  tJiy  master  could  have 
been  expressed,  is  that  here  used.  The  ambiguity  is  removed  by  the  con- 
nection, which  requires  the  phrase  to  be  applied  to  Hezekiah. 

13.  And  Fiahshakeh  stood  and  called  uith  a  loud  voice  in  Jewish  (/.  e. 
Hebrew),  and  said,  Hear  the  words  of  the  great  Icing,  the  king  of  Assyria. 
In  so  doing  he  not  only  testified  his  contempt  for  the  king's  messengers  by 
insolently  disregarding  their  request,  but  made  a  political  appeal  to  the 
hopes  and  fears  of  the  multitude.  That  he  stood  and  called,  is  explained 
by  some  to  mean  that  he  assumed  a  higher  position,  or  came  nearer  to  the 
wall ;  but  the  simplest  and  most  natural  explanation  is,  that  he  remained 
where  he  was  before  and  merely  raised  his  voice. 

14.  Thus  sailh  the  liing :  let  not  Hezekiah  deceive  you,  for  he  trill  not  he 
able  to  dclirer  ynii.  The  repeated  mention  of  the  king  reminds  them,  that 
he  is  not  speaking  in  his  own  name,  but  in  that  of  a  great  monarch.  The 
parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xviii.  29)  adds,  out  of  his  hand. 

15.  And  let  not  Jlezekiah  make  you  trust  in  Jehovah,  saying,  Jehovah  will 
certainly  save  us,  this  city  shall  not  be  given  up  info  the  hand  of  the  king  of 
Assyria.  The  only  difference  between  this  and  the  parallel  passage 
(2  Kings  xviii.  30)  is  that  the  latter  inserts  HX  before  this  city,  a  construc- 
tion of  the  passive  verb  which,  according  to  Knobel,  was  considered  incorrect 
by  the  transcriber.  The  idea  of  certain  deliverance  is  expressed  by  the 
idiomatic  combination  of  the  future  and  infinitive. 


60  ISAIAH  X.XXVL  [Veb.  lG-19. 

IT).  JFearhn  not  to  Ilezekiah,  for  thus  sait/i  the  king  of  Asmjria,  make  icifh 
me  a  blessing,  and  come  out  unto  me,  and  eat  ye  {erery)  man  his  otcn  vine  and 
{m-ery)  man  his  otrn  fig-tree,  and  drink  ye  {every)  man  the  waters  of  his  own 
cistern,  nai^  usually  means  a  Utssivg,  but  in  a  few  instances  a  gift  or 
prrsenf,  as  a  token  of  good  will.  Hence  some  explain  the  phrase  here 
used,  make  me  a  present,  or  make  an  agreement  with  me  by  a  present.  Others 
give  the  Hebrew  word,  in  this  one  case,  the  sense  of  peace,  which  of  course 
suits  the  connection,  because  it  is  in  fact  a  mere  conjecture  from  the  con- 
text. If  an  unusual  meaning  of  the  word  must  be  assumed,  it  might  have 
that  of  kneeling,  as  a  gesture  of  submissiou  or  an  act  of  bomnge,  from  "T^S 
to  kneel.  It  is  possible,  however,  to  adhere  more  closely  to  the  usage  of 
the  term,  by  taking  blessing  in  the  sense  of  friendly  salutation,  which  in  the 
East  is  commonly  an  invocation  of  the  divire  blessing.  Thus  the  verb  to 
bless  is  often  used  to  express  the  act  of  greeting  or  of  taking  leave.  To 
make  a  blessing  with  one  then  might  mean  to  enter  into  amicable  inter- 
course. To  come  out  is  in  Hebrew  the  common  militarj-  phrase  for  the 
surrender  of  a  besieged  town.  The  inducements  offered  in  the  last  clause 
are  in  obvious  antithesis  to  the  revolting  threat  or  warning  in  the  last  clause 
of  ver.  12.  To  eat  the  vine  and  fig-tree  (meaning  to  eat  their  fruit)  is  an 
elliptical  form  of  speech,  which  has  its  analogies  in  every  language. 

17.  Cntil  I  come  and  take  you  away  to  a  land  like  your  own  land,  a  land 
of  corn  and  wine,  a  land  of  bread  and  vineyards.  Tlip  parallel  passage 
(2  Kings  xviii.  82),  adds,  a  laud  (f  oil-olive  and  honey,  that  ye  may  live  and 
not  die,  which  has  quite  as  much  the  aspect  of  an  amplified  copy  as  of  a 
redundant  original.  This  reference  to  the  deportation  of  the  people  ns  u 
future  event  has  led  some  interpreters  to  the  conclu.«ion.  that  Senna'-herib 
•was  now  on  his  way  to  Eg}-pt,  and  deferred  the  measure  until  his  return. 
It  has  been  disputed  what  particular  land  is  here  meant,  some  saying  Meso- 
potamia, to  which  others  object  that  it  was  not  a  wine-growing  countrj'. 
But,  as  Knobel  observes,  there  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  the  Assyrian's 
description  was  exactly  true.  He  may  indeed  have  intended  merely  to 
promise  them  in  general  a  country  as  abundant  as  their  own, 

18.  Let  not  (or  beware  lest)  Jlczekiah  seduce  you,  saying,  Jehovah  will 
deliver  us.  Have  the  gods  of  the  nations  delivered  every  one  his  land  out  of 
the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria  ?  *B  is  commonly  equivalent  to  lest,  and 
dependent  on  a  foregoing  verb,  but  sometimes  (like  the  Latin  ne)  stands  at 
the  beginning  of  a  sentence.  Here  wc  may  either  supply  take  herd,  or 
regard  JQ  as  equivalent  to  ^K,  which  is  actually  used  in  the  pnrallel 
passage  (2  Kings  xviii.  32)  with  a  repetition  of  the  verb  IVDCTI  (jirarken 
not  to  Ilezekiah  when  he  incites,  or,  for  he  shall  incite  you,  saying).  Had 
this  been  the  form  of  expression  in  Isaiah,  wc  should  liave  seen  it  noted  as 
an  instance  of  assimilation  characteristic  of  a  later  writer;  but  ns  it  un- 
luckily occurs  in  the  other  place,  it  is  discreetly  overlooked  by  the  inter- 
preters. The  Assyrian  here,  with  characteristic  recklessness,  forsakes  his 
previous  position,  that  he  was  but  acting  ns  Jehovah's  instrument,  and  sets 
himself  in  disdainful  opposition  to  Jehovah  hims<'lf. 

19.  Jf'here  {are)  the  gods  of  ] fa  math  and  Arpad?  where  the  gods  of  Sep- 
harvaim  f  and  (wlicn  or  where  was  it)  that  they  delivered  Samaria  out  of 
my  hand  ?  In  the  rapi<lity  of  his  triunipbnnt  interrogation,  he  expresses 
himself  darkly  and  imperfectly.  The  last  clause  must  of  course  refer  to 
the  gods  of  Samaria,  though  not  expressly  mentioned.  '3  is  not  an  inter- 
rogative jironoun  (who  have  ddivrrtd  ?)  nor  an  interrogative  particle  [have 
they  delivered  t),  but  a  connective  particle,  depaidtnt  upon  sometliing  not 


Yer.  20-22.J  ISAIAIL  XXXVII.  51 

expressed.  For  the  situation  of  Hamath  and  Arpad,  see  the  note  on  chap. 
X.  9.  Sepharvaim  is  probably  the  Sipphara  of  Ptolemy,  a  town  and  pro- 
vince in  the  south  of  Mesopotamia,  already  subject  to  Assyria  in  the  days 
of  Shalmaneser.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xviii.  34)  adds  Ilena  and 
Irvah,  which  are  also  named  with  Sepharvaim  in  2  Kings  xix.  13,  and  Isa. 
xxxvii.  13.  The  question  (where  are  they?)  seems  to  imply  not  only  that 
they  had  not  saved  their  worshippers,  but  that  they  had  ceased  to  be. 

20.  If'/io  (are  they)  among  all  the  gods  of  these  lands,  that  have  delivered 
their  land  out  of  my  hand,  that  Jehovah  should  deliver  Jerusalem  out  of  my 
hand?  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xviii.  35)  omits  these  before  lands  ; 
another  exception  to  the  general  statement,  that  the  narrative  before  us  is 
an  abridgment  of  the  other.  In  this  argumentative  interrogation,  he  puts 
Jehovah  on  a  level  with  the  gods  of  the  surrounding  nations.  This  is  still 
more  frequently  and  pointedly  expressed  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Chronicles : 
"  Ivnow  ye  not  what  I  and  my  fathers  have  done  unto  all  the  nations  of 
the  countries  ?  "Were  the  gods  of  the  nations  of  the  countries  able  to  de- 
liver their  country  out  of  my  hand  ?  Who  was  there  among  all  the  gods 
of  these  nations,  which  my  fathers  utterly  destroyed,  that  was  able  to  deliver 
his  people  out  of  my  hand,  that  your  God  should  be  able  to  deliver  you  out 
of  my  hand  ?  And  now,  let  not  Hezekiah  deceive  you,  and  let  him  not 
seduce  yon,  neither  believe  him  ;  for  no  god  of  any  nation  or  kingdom  has 
been  able  to  deliver  his  people  out  of  my  hand,  and  out  of  the  hand  of  my 
fathers;  how  much  less  shall  your  God  deliver  you  out  of  my  hand?" 
(2  Chron.  xxxii.  13-15).  From  the  same  authority  we  learn  that  over  and 
above  what  is  recorded,  Sennacherib's  servants  "spake  still  more  against 
the  God  Jehovah  and  against  Hezekiah  his  servant"  (ver.  16),  and  that 
"they  cried  with  a  loud  voice  in  the  Jewish  language,  to  the  people  of 
Jerusalem  who  were  on  the  wall,  to  atlright  them,  and  to  trouble  them,  that 
they  might  take  the  city ;  and  they  spake  against  the  God  of  Jerusalem  as 
against  the  gods  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  work  of  men's  hands'" 
(vers.  18,  19). 

21.  A.nd  they  held  their  peace,  and  did  not  answer  him  a  word,  for  such 
teas  the  commandment  of  the  king,  saying.  Ye  shall  not  answer  him.  Some 
interjDreters  refer  the  first  clause  to  Eliakim,  Shebna,  and  Joah ;  but  the 
parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xviii.  36)  says  expressly  that  the  people  held  their 
peace,  which  Knobel  says  is  more  correct,  as  if  the  two  were  inconsistent, 
and  gravely  adds,  that  utir  narrator  was  thinking  of.  the  messengers.  The 
notion  of  some  of  the  old  writers,  that  they  did  confer  with  him,  notwith- 
standing what  is  here  said,  is  gratuitous  and  arbitrary  in  a  high  degree. 

22.  Then  came  EliaJdm,  Hilkiah's  son,  uho  [was)  over  the  house,  and 
Shebna  the  scribe,  and  Joah  Asaph's  son,  the  recorder,  unto  Hezekiah,  vith 
their  clothes  rent  (literally,  rent  of  clothes),  and  told  him  the  icords  of  Rab- 
shakeh.  Some  of  the  older  wTiters  understand  the  rending  of  their  gar- 
ments as  a  mere  sign  of  their  horror  at  Rabshakeh's  blasphemies  ;  some 
of  the  moderns  as  a  mere  sign  of  despondency  and  alarm  at  the  impending 
dangers  ;  whereas  both  may  naturally  be  included. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

This  chapter  is  a  direct  continuation  of  the  one  before  it.  It  describes 
the  etl'ect  of  Kabshakeh's  blasphemies  and  threats  on  Hezekiah,  his  humi- 
liation ;    his  message  to  Isaiah,   and  the    answer  ;    the  retreat  of  Rab- 


52  ISATAir  XXXVTL  Veh.  1-3. 

sbakeh,  Scnnfichcril)'8  letter,  Hezekiah's  prayer,  Isaiah's  prophecy,  and 
its  fulfilment  in  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army  and  his  own  tli>,'ht 
and  murder. 

1.  And  it  teas  [ox  came  to  pa/ts)  when  king  Ilezekiah  heard  [ih.G  report  of 
his  messengers),  that  he  rent  his  clothes,  and  covered  himself  with  sack- 
cloth, and  went  into  the  house  of  Jehovah.  Gill's  suggostion,  that  he 
rent  his  clothes  because  of  the  Ass\Tian's  blasphemy  and  put  on  sackcloth 
because  of  his  threats,  appears  to  be  a  fanciful  distinction.  Both  acts 
were  customary  signs  of  mourning,  and  appropriate  to  any  case  of  deep  dis- 
tress. He  resorted  to  the  temple,  not  only  as  a  public  "place,  but  with 
reference  to  the  promise  made  to  Solomon  (1  Kings  ^-iii.  29),  that  God 
would  hear  the  prayers  of  his  people  from  that  place  when  they  were  in 
distress.  Under  the  old  dispensation  there  were  reasons  for  resorting  to 
the  temple,  even  to  otTer  private  supplications,  which  cannot  possibly  apply 
to  any  church  or  other  place  at  present.  This  arose  partly  from  the  fact 
that  prayer  was  connected  with  sacrifice,  and  this  was  rigidly  confined  to 
one  spot. 

2.  And  he  sent  Eliakim  uho  was  over  the  household,  and  Shebna  the  scribe, 
and  the  elders  of  the  priests,  covered  with  sackcloth,  unto  Isaiah  the  son 
nf  Amoz,  the  prophet.  Wh.\\e  he  himself  resorted  to  the  temple,  he  sent  to 
ask  the  counsel  and  the  intercessions  of  the  Prophet.  Calvin's  supposition, 
that  Isaiah  was  directed  to  remain  at  home,  amidst  the  general  alarm  and 
lamentation,  as  a  test  of  Hezekiah's  faith,  seems  at  least  unnecessary. 
Eliakim  and  Shebna  are  again  employed  in  this  case,  as  being  qualified  to 
make  an  exact  report  of  what  had  happened,  and  in  order  to  put  honour 
on  the  Prophet  by  an  embassy  of  distinguished  men.  In  the  place  of  Joah, 
he  sends  the  ehlcra  of  the  priests,  i.e.  the  heads  of  the  sacerdotal  families. 
The  reference  of  elders  to  personal  age  by  Luther  {den  iihesten  Priestern) 
and  Barnes  {the  old  men  (f  the  priests),  is  less  consistent  with  the  context, 
which  describes  the  other  messengers  by  their  official  titles  only,  and  with 
the  nsage  of  D*3pt,  as  denoting  the  hereditarv'  chiefs  of  Levi  no  less  than 
the  other  tribes.  The  king  applies  to  the  Prophet  as  the  authorized  ex- 
pounder of  the  will  of  God.  Similar  applications  are  recorded  elsewhere 
with  sufficient  frequency  to  shew  that  they  were  customary,  and  that  the 
prophets  were  regarded  in  this  light.  Thus  Josiah  sent  to  Huldah  (2  Kings 
xxii.  14),  Zedekiah  to  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxvii.  8),  Sec.  The  impious  Ahab 
r('([nired  Micaiah  to  come  to  him,  and  that  only  at  the  earnest  request  of 
king  Ji'hoshaphat  (1  Kings  xxii.  i)).  From  the  mention  of  the  Prophet's 
father  two  very  different  but  equally  gratuitous  conclusions  are  drawn  ; 
(me  by  Vitringa,  who  infers  that  Isaiah  was  of  noble  rank  ;  the  other  by 
Hendfwerk,  who  infers  that  he  cannot  be  the  author  of  this  narrative,  as 
he  never  would  have  called  himself  the  son  of  Amoz.  In  the  parallel 
passage  (2  Kings  xix.  2)  the  patronymic  follows  the  oflicial  title,  whereas 
here  it  precedes  it.  As  this  last  is  the  usual  collocation,  Geseuius  appears 
to  think  that  it  was  substituted  for  the  other  by  the  later  writer,  while  Hit- 
/ig,  for  the  very  same  reason,  declares  this  to  bo  the  original  reading.  The 
plural  D'pl^*  seems  to  shew  that  PIJ'  is  not  hero  the  name  of  the  material 
but  of  the  garment  {romrd  uith  sacks,  or  snckclnth  dresses).  Of  the  king's 
prompt  appeal  to  God  in  his  extremity.  Gill  quaintly  says :  Ueztkiah  does 
not  sit  dawn  to  consider  liahshakeh' s  speech,  to  take  it  in  pieces  and  (fire  an 
answer  to  it,  but  he  applies  unto  (t'od. 

3.  And  they  said  unto  hint.  Thus  saith  ITezrkiah,  a  da>j  of  anguish  and 
rebuke  and  contempt  {is)  this  dag,  for  the  children  are  come  to  the  birth  {or 


Ver.  4. J  ISAIAH  XXXVII.  53 

to  the  places  of  birth),  and  there  is  not  strength  to  bring  forth.  Tlie  indirect 
construction  of  the  first  words  [thai  they  may  say  to  him),  adopted  by  some 
writers,  is  not  only  unnecessary  but  foreign  from  the  Hebrew  idiom  which, 
especially  in  narrative,  prefers  the  most  siipple  and  direct  forms  of  expres- 
sion. That  Hezekiah  told  them  thus  to  speak,  is  not  only  impHed  in  their 
doing  so,  but  expressly  asserted  by  themselves,  and  need  not  therefore  be 
recorded.  As  the  execution  of  a  command  is  often  left  to  be  inferred  from 
the  command  itself  (chaps,  vii.  3,  viii,  1,  &c.),  so  here  the  details  of  the 
command  are  to  be  gathered  from  the  record  of  its  execution.  The  com- 
mon version  of  HIV  (^trouble)  seems  too  weak  for  the  occasion  and  for  the 
figure  in  the  other  clause.  It  is  well  explained  by  Vitringa,  as  denoting, 
not  external  danger  merely,  but  the  complicated  distress,  both  of  a  temporal 
and  spiritual  nature,  in  which  Hezekiah  was  involved  by  the  threats  and 
blasphemies  of  the  Assyrian.  Bebuke  is  applied  by  the  Septuagint  [oviidi- 
ff/ioD)  and  some  interpreters  to  the  reproaches  of  Rabshakeh  ;  but  it  is  more 
agreeable  to  usage  to  explain  it  as  signifying  the  divine  rebuke  or  chastise- 
ment, as  in  Ps.  Ixxiii.  4,  cxlix.  7.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  Scriptures  and 
the  ancient  saints  to  represent  even  the  malignity  of  human  enemies  as  a 
rebuke  from  God.  The  very  same  phrase  {day  of  rebuke)  is  used  in  the 
same  sense  by  Hosea  (v,  9).  The  verb  from  which  n^fN3  is  derived  means 
to  treat  with  contempt,  or  more  specifically,  to  reject  with  sconi.  It  is  some- 
times used  to  denote  God's  rejection  of  his  people  (Dent,  xxxii.  19  ;  Jer. 
xiv.  21  ;  Lam.  ii.  G),  and  Hitzig  accordingly  translates  the  noun  rejection 
or  reprobation  (P'erwer/i<ri(/).  But  as  the  verb  more  frequently  expresses 
man's  contempt  of  God  (e.  g.  chap.  i.  4),  interpreters  are  commonly  agreed 
in  making  the  noun  here  mean  blasphemy.  The  terms  employed  by  Lo'svth 
{contumely)  and  Henderson  {calumny)  are  too  weak,  if  the  reference  be  to 
God,  as  the  usage  of  the  verb  seems  to  require.  The  oral  exi^ression  of 
contempt  for  God  is  blasphemy.  The  metaphor  in  the  last  clause  ex- 
presses, in  the  most  afi'ecting  manner,  the  ideas  of  extreme  pain,  imminent 
danger,  critical  emergency,  utter  weakness,  and  entire  dependence  on  the 
aid  of  others.  (Compare  the  similar  expressions  of  chap.  xxvi.  18.)  The 
reference  of  the  passage  to  the  interrupted  reformation  of  religion,  or  to 
the  abortive  clfort  to  shake  ofl'  the  Assyrian  yoke,  is  equally  illogical  and 
tasteless,  while  the  question,  whether  Judah  is  here  represented  as  the 
mother  or  the  child,  betrays  a  total  incapacity  to  appreciate  the  strength 
and  beauty  of  the  Prophet's  metaphor.  There  is  no  more  need  of  mooting 
such  points  than  if  he  had  simply  said,  the  present  distress  is  like  the  pains 
of  childbirth. 

4.  If  pel  adventure  Jehovah  thy  God  will  hear  the  words  of  Babshakeh, 
whom  the  king  of  Assyria  his  ))iaster  hath  sent  to  reproach  the  living  God, 
and  iviU  rebuke  the  words  wliich  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  heard,  then  shalt 
thou  lift  up  a  prayer  for  the  remnant  (that  is  ?>\a\\)  found  (here).  ^^1N  mav 
generally  be  expressed  by  our  perhaps,  and  this  translation  is  adopted  here 
by  most  interpreters,  who  then  take  Vat  the  beginning  of  the  last  clause  in 
the  sense  of  therefore.  But  by  retaining  what  appears  to  be  the  primary 
and  proper  force  of  vIS,  as  a  contingent  and  conditional  expression,  and 
making  1  the  usual  sign  of  the  apodosis,  we  may  throw  the  whole  into  one 
sentence,  and  make  more  obvious  the  connection  of  the  clauses.  It  was 
because  Hezekiah  thought  Jehovah  might  hear,  that  he  asked  Isaiah's 
prayers  in  his  behalf.  The  meaning  given  to  vIN  in  this  construction  is 
expressed  in  the  English  version  of  Isa.  xlvii.  12,  and  Jer.  xxi.  2,  and  might 


54  ISATAir  XXXVII.  [Tee.  4. 

be  substituted  for  perhaps  in  all  the  cases  where  the  latter  is  employed  to 
represent  this  particle,  in  some  with  great  advantage  to  the  clearness  or  the 
force  of  the  expression.  Lowth's  explanation  of  vIX  as  an  optative  p:ir- 
ticle  [0  that  Jehovah  thy  (iod  would  hear)  is  not  justified  by  usage.  The 
doubt  expressed  in  the  first  clause,  whether  God  tvill  hear,  is  viewed  by 
some  interpreters  as  inconsistent  with  the  statement  in  the  last  clause,  that 
he  has  heard.  To  remove  this  imaginary  discrepancy,  some  deny  that  the 
first  clause  really  expresses  doubt  or  implies  contingency ;  others  allege 
that  hear  is  used  in  two  distinct  senses,  that  of  simply  hearing,  and  that  of 
regarding  or  attending  to,  and  acting  accordingly.  The  true  solution 
seems  to  be,  that  the  preterite  V^JJ'  denotes  a  past  time  only  in  relation  to 
the  contingency  expressed  by  VDl^.  Perhaps  he  nill  hear,  and  then  punish 
what  he  has  heard.  Both  verbs  may  then  be  understood  in  one  and  the 
same  sense,  either  that  of  simply  hearing,  or  in  that  of  acting  as  if  one 
heard.  The  reproach  and  blasphem}'  of  the  Assyrian  consisted  mainly  in 
his  confoumling  Jehovah  with  the  gods  of  the  surrounding  nations  (2  Chron. 
xxxii.  19),  in  antithesis  to  whom,  as  being  impotent  and  lifeless,  he  is  here 
and  elsewhere  called  the  living  God.  The  Septuagint,  Vulgate,  and  most 
interprete-rs,  ancient  and  modern,  make  n'2in  an  infinitive,  connected  by 
the  ^  with  ^"in,  and  descriptive  of  Rabshakeh's  blasphemies  [and  to  rebuke 
me  in  thr  words,  kc).  But  reprove  or  rebuke  is  a  description  wholly  inap- 
propriate to  such  a  speech,  and  the  Hebrew  word  nowhere  means  to  rail  at 
or  revile.  Usage,  moreover,  would  require  the  particle  to  be  repeated  before 
this  infinitive,  and  Gesenius  (in  his  Commentary)  accordingly  assumes  that 
n*3ini  is  put  for  n*3in?V  The  grammatical  and  lexicographical  objections 
may  be  both  avoided  by  taking  noin  as  a  preterite  with  the  1  conversive, 
as  in  the  English  Version  [and  will  reprove).  The  3  may  then  be  either 
a  mere  connective  of  the  verb  with  its  object  (rebuke  the  words),  or  dvnote 
the  occasion  and  the  ground  (rebuke  him /or  the  words,  kc).  Maurer,  who 
successfully  defends  this  construction  (in  his  note  on  2  Kings  xix.  1),  in 
order  to  shew  that  bo  is  not  alone  in  his  opinion,  says,  conscntieutcm  habeo 
Fdsium.  He  might  have  gone  a  little  further  back,  not  only  to  Junius  and 
Tremellius,  but  to  Jonathan,  who  paraphrases  the  expression  thus,  and  will 
take  vengeance  for  the  words.  Sec.  The  same  construction  is  adopted  by 
Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus,  It  is  also  retained  in  the  modem  English  ver- 
sions, among  which  that  of  Lowth  puts  a  peculiar  sense  upon  the  clause,  by 
making  it  express  a  wish  that  God  would  refute  Rabshakeh's  words,  mean- 
ing no  doubt  by  the  actual  exertion  of  the  power  which  he  called  in  question. 
But  this  specific  meaning  of  noin  cannot  be  sustained  by  usage.  7o  lift 
up  a  prayer  is  not  simply  to  utter  one,  but  has  allusion  to  two  common 
idiomatic  phrases,  that  of  lifting  up  the  voice  in  the  sense  of  speaking  loud 
or  beginning  to  speak,  and  that  of  lifting  up  the  heart  or  soul  in  the  sense 
of  earnestly  desiring.  The  passive  participle/ryrnu^  is  often  used  in  Hebrew 
to  denote  what  '\^  present  in  a  certain  place,  or  more  generally  what  is  extant 
in  existence,  or  forthcoming.  The  meaning  left,  which  is  expressed  in  the 
English  and  some  other  versions,  is  suggested  wholly  by  the  noun  with 
which  the  participle  here  agrees.  As  to  the  application  of  the  wholi'  phrase, 
it  may  either  be  a  general  description  of  the  straits  or  low  condition  to  which 
the  chosen  people  were  reduced  (as  the  church  at  Sardis  is  exhorted  to 
strengthen  the  things  which  remain,  Rev.  iii.  2),  or  bo  more  specifically 
understood  in  reference  to  Judah  as  surviving  the  destruction  of  the  ten 
tribes  (compare^  chap,  xxviii.  T)),  or  to  Jerusalem  as  spared  amidst  the 
general  desolation  of  Judah  (compare  chap.  i.  8).    In  cither  case,  the  king 


Ver.  5-7.]  ISAIAH  XXXVII.  55 

requests  the  Prophet  to  pray  for  their  deliverance  from  entire  destruction. 
This  application  was  made  to  Isaiah,  not  as  a  private  person,  however 
eminent  in  piety,  but  as  one  who  was  recognized  as  standing  in  an  intimate 
relation  to  Jehovah,  and  as  a  constituted  medium  of  communication  with 
him.  In  like  manner  God  himself  said  to  Abimelech  of  Abraham,  he  is  a 
prophet,  and  shall  pray  for  thee,  and  thou  slialt  live  (Gen.  xx.  7).  In 
recognition  of  the  same  relation,  Hezekiah  twice  says  thy  God,  i.e.  thine 
in  a  peculiar  and  distinctive  sense.  This  phrase  is  therefore  not  to  bo 
regarded  as  an  expression  of  despondency,  or  even  of  humility,  on  Heze- 
Idah's  part,  but  as  a  kind  of  indirect  explanation  of  his  reason  for  resorting 
to  the  Prophet  at  this  juncture. 

5.  And  the  servants  of  king  Hezekiah  came  to  Isaiah.  This  is  a  natural 
and  simple  resumption  of  the  narrative,  common  in  all  inartificial  histoiy. 
It  affords  no  ground  for  assuming  a  transposition  in  the  text,  nor  for  ex- 
plaining IIOX""!  in  ver.  3  as  a  subjunctive. 

6.  And  Isaiah  said  to  them,  Thus  shall  ye  say  to  your  master,  Thus  saith 
Jehovah,  Be  not  afraid  of  (litoraWy  from  before  ov  from  the  faee  of)  the  words 
which  thou  hast  heard,  (with)  which  the  servants  of  the  king  of  Assyria  have 
hlas/ihemed  me.  The  last  verb  means  to  rail  at  or  revile,  and  when  applied 
to  God,  must  be  translated  by  a  still  stronger  term.  The  word  translated 
servants  is  not  the  same  with  that  in  the  preceding  verse,  but  strictly  means 
young  men  or  boys,  and  is  so  translated  in  the  Targum  and  Vulgate. 
Many  interpreters  regard  it  as  a  contemptuous  description,  and  it  is  so 
translated  by  Hitzig  {Knappen),  V mhre'ii  {Buben),  Henderson  (striplings), 
and  in  other  modern  versions. 

7.  Uehold  I  am  putting  (or  about  to  put)  a  spirit  in  him,  and  he  shall  hear 
a  noise,  and  shall  return  to  his  own  land,  and  I  will  cause  him-  to  fall  by  the 
sword  in  his  o:un  land.  Calvin  translates  the  first  clause  ecce  opponam 
illi  ventum,  and  explains  it  to  mean  that  God  would  carry  him  away  as  with 
a  wind  (compare  chap.  xvii.  13).  The  English  Version  renders  it,  behold 
I  will  send  u  blad  upon  him,  meaning  either  a  pestilential  blast  or  a  destruc- 
tive tempest.  Others  understand  by  nn  the  destroying  angel,  or  an  evil 
spirit  by  whom  he  should  be  haunted  and  possessed.  But  most  inter- 
preters "refer  the  phrase  to  an  effect  to  be  produced  upon  the  mind  of  the 
Assyrian.  Thus  some  explain  nn  to  mean  terror,  others  courage,  others  a 
desire  to  return  home,  others  simply  a  change  of  mind.  The  most  probable 
conclusion  is,  that  it  does  not  denote  a  specific  change,  but  divine  influence 
as  governing  his  movements.  nj/IO'^  strictly  means  anything  heard,  and 
Luther  accor^lingly  translates  the  phrase,  he  shall  hear  something.  Most 
writers  un^lerstand  this  as  referring  to  the  news  mentioned  in  ver.  9  below. 
But  Henderson  observes  that  this  news,  far  from  driving  Sennacherib 
home,  led  to  a  fresh  defiance  of  Jerusalem.  He  therefore  ingeniously  sug- 
gests, that  this  expression  has  reference  to  the  news  of  the  destruction  of 
his  host  before  Jerusalem  while  he  himself  was  absent.  But  in  the  next 
verse  Rabshakch  is  said  to  have  rt^oincd  his  master,  nor  is  there  any  further 
mention  of  an  armv  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  though  not  re- 
corded, that  Rabshlikeh  left  the  troops  behind  him  when  he  wont  to  Libnah. 
under  the  command  of  Tartan  or  Ribsaris  (2  Kings  xviii.  17),  and  this  is 
still  more  probable  if,  as  some  suppose,  Rabshakeh  was  a  mere  ambassador 
or  herald,  and  Tartan  the  real  military  chief.  If  it  can  be  assumed,  on  any 
ground,  that  the  great  catastrophe  took  place  in  the  absence  of  Sennacherib, 
which  would  account  for  his  personal  escape,  then  Henderson's  explanation 
of  nyin-J'  is  more  satisfactory  than  any  other.     The  modern  Germans  are 


66  ItiAIAU  XXXVII.  ,Veh.  8,  U. 

perplexed  by  this  verse.  They  would  gladly  explain  the  prediction  in  the 
last  clause  as  a  prophecy  ex  eventu ;  but  in  that  case,  how  could  the  slaughter 
of  the  host  have  been  omitted  ?  The  only  escape  from  Ibis  dilemma  is  by 
the  arbitrary  allegation  that  the  i)rophccy  was  falsely  ascribed  to  Isaiah  by 
a  later  writer.  If  this  be  so,  we  may  as  well  reject  the  whole  ;  for  what 
assurance  have  we  that  a  writer,  who  fabricates  miracles  and  prophecies,  is 
faithful  in  his  history  of  other  matters  ?  The  inconveniences  of  tbis  attempt 
to  save  a  part  while  really  discrediting  tlie  whole,  are  curiously  apparent  from 
Gesenius's  endeavour  to  explain  the  lirst  clause  of  this  vei-se  as  a  sagacious 
political  conjecture,  and  the  other  as  a  subsequent  interpolation. 

8.  And  llahshakeh  returned,  and  found  the  king  of  Anxyria  fighting 
againut  (i.  e.  besieging)  Lihnah,  for  he  heard  that  he  had  deeamped  from 
Lachish.  Both  these  towns  were  in  the  plain  or  lowlands  of  Judea,  south- 
west of  Jerusalem  (Josh.  xv.  39,  42),  originally  seats  of  Canaanitish  kings 
or  chiefs,  conquered  by  Joshua  (Josh.  xii.  11,  15).  Lachish  was  one  of 
the  fifteen  places  fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  9),  and  one  of  the 
last  towns  taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer.  xxxiv.  7).  It  was  still  in  existence 
after  the  exile  (Neh.  xi.  30).  Libuah  was  a  city  of  the  Levites  and  of 
refuge  (Josh,  xxi,  13),  and  appears  to  have  been  nearer  to  Jerusalem. 
Henderson  infers  that  Sennacherib  had  conquered  Lachish,  most  other 
wTiters  that  he  failed  in  the  attempt.  Some  of  the  older  writers  make 
Libnah  an  Egyptian  city,  either  because  one  of  the  stations  of  the  Israelites  in 
the  wilderness  bore  this  name  (Num.  xxxiii.  20),  or  because  Josephus.in  order 
to  reconcile  Isaiah's  narrative  with  tbat  of  Herodotus,  represent's  Sen- 
nacherib as  leaving  Lachish  to  besiege  Pelusium.  The  last  verb  in  this  verse 
properly  denotes  the  removal  of  a  tent  or  an  encampment,  an  idea  happily 
expressed  in  Lowth's  translation  by  the  military  term  decamped.  Tbe  sense 
of  this  verb  can  be  here  expressed  in  our  idiom  only  by  the  use  of  the  plu- 
perfect, which  fonu  is  given  by  most  versions  to  the  verb  before  it  likewise, 
and  Hendewcrk  extends  it  even  to  the  verbs  of  the  first  clause,  which  is 
wholly  gratuitous. 

9.  And  he  (Sennacherib)  heard  say  concerning  Tirhakah  king  of  Ethiopia, 
He  is  come  forth  to  make  war  uifh  thee  ;  and  he  heard  [if ',  and  sent  ^or  uhen 
he  heard  it  he  sent)  messengers  to  Uezekiah,  sagini/  (what  follows  in  the  next 
verse).  On  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  name  tM3,  see  the  notes  on  chap, 
xviii.  1,  and  xx.  3.  Tirhakah  was  one  of  the  most  famous  conquerors  of 
ancient  times.  Megastheues,  as  quoted  by  Strabo,  puts  him  between 
Sesostris  and  Nebuchadnezzar.  He  is  also  named  by  Manetho  as  one  of 
the  Ethiopian  dynasty  in  Egypt.  He  was  at  tbis  time  either  in  close 
ahance  with  that  country,  or  more  probably  in  actual  possession  of  Tbebais 
or  Upper  Egypt.  The  fact  tbat  an  Ethiopian  dynasty  did  reign  tbere  is 
attested  by  the  ancient  writers,  and  confiirmed  by  still  existing  monuments. 
The  Greek  forms  of  tbe  name  (Tagaxof,  Tdgxoi,  Thxui)  vars"  but  little  from 
the  Hebrew.  Inarms  and  some  of  the  older  writers  suppose  that  Sennacherib 
had  already  been  driven  out  of  Egypt  by  tbis  king,  and  was  now  afraid  of 
being  followed  into  Palestine;  but  this  conclusion  is  hardly  warranted  by 
the  facts  of  the  liistt-ry,  siicred  or  profane.  It  is  unnecessarj-  to  sujipose,  with 
J.  1).  Micbaelis,  that  Tirhakah  had  crossed  the  desert  to  invade  Assyria, 
or  even  with  Kosenmiiller,  that  he  was  already  on  the  frontier  of  Judah. 
The  bare  fact  of  bis  liaving  left  his  own  dominions,  with  the  purjiosc  of 
attacking  Sennacherib,  would  be  suflicient  to  alarm  the  latter,  especially  as 
his  operations  in  the  Holy  Land  had  been  so  unsuccessful.  He  was 
natur.dly  anxious,  therefore,  to  induce  Uezekiah   to  capitulate  before  the 


Yer.  10,  11.]  ISAIAH  XXXVII.  57 

Ethiopians  should  an-ive,  perhaps  before  the  Jews  should  hear  of  their 
ai^proach.  That  he  did  not  march  upon  Jerusalem  himself  is  yer}-  probably 
accounted  for  by  Vitringa,  ou  the  f,'round  that  his  strength  lay  chiefly  in 
cavalry,  which  could  not  be  employed  in  the  highlands,  and  that  the  polior- 
cetic  part  of  warfare,  or  the  conduct  of  sieges,  was  little  known  to  any  ancient 
nation  but  the  Romans,  as  Tacitus  asserts.  A  peculiar  difficulty  arose 
also  from  the  scarcity  of  water  in  the  environs  of  Jerusalem,  which  has 
been  an  obstacle  to  all  the  armies  that  have  ever  besieged  it  (see  the  notes 
on  chap.  xxii.  9-11).  Gesenius  supposes  that  symptoms  of  the  plague  had 
begun  to  shew  themselves  in  Palestine.  Instead  of  ^V  before  Tirhakah,  the 
parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix.  9)  has  ?«,  which  is  the  more  remarkable  be- 
cause the  latter  particle  is  represented  by  some  critics  as  a  favourite  of  the 
copyist  or  later  ^vriter,  to  whom  they  ascribe  this  portion  of  Isaiah.  In- 
stead of  the  second  heanl,  the  parallel  passage  has  he  returned,  which, 
according  to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom,  may  qualify  the  next  verb  (sent),  by 
giving  it  the  sense  of  sent  aniiiii.  This,  which  certainly  yields  an  appro- 
priate meaning,  is  restored  by  Lowth  in  this  place  as  the  true  text,  while 
Gesenius  and  the  later  German  writers,  who  are  usually  bold  enough  in 
critical  conjecture,  choose  in  this  case  to  regard  the  reading  in  Isaiah  as  a 
tautolog}'  of  the  later  ^mter.  Yet  the  variation  is  precisely  such  as  one 
writer  would  be  apt  to  make  in  recording  the  same  matter  twice. 

10.  Thus  shall  ye  say  to  Ilezehiah,  khiy  of  Judah,  Let  not  thy  God  deceive 
thee,  in  whom  thou  trustesf,  sayi/iy,  Jerusalem  shall  not  he  given  into  the  hand 
of  the  king  of  Assyria.  This  recognition  of  Hezekiah's  royal  dignity,  of 
which  Rabshakeh  seemed  to  take  no  notice,  if  significant  at  all,  as  some 
intei-preters  imagine,  may  be  accounted  for  upon  the  ground  that  in  this 
message  the  design  of  the  Assyrians  was  not  to  destroy  the  people's  con- 
fidence in  Hezekiah,  but  the  king's  own  confidence  in  God.  For  the  same 
reason,  Sennacherib's  blasphemy  is  much  more  open  and  direct  than  that 
of  Rabshakeh,  The  word  saying  may  be  referred  either  to  Hezekiah  or  to 
God.  This  English  Yersion  makes  the  last  construction  necessary,  by 
changing  the  collocation  of  the  words  ;  but  Luther,  Gesenius,  and  many 
others  understand  the  sense  to  be,  in  uhom  thou  trustest,  saying.  This  is 
in  fact  entitled  to  the  preference,  on  the  ground  that  nt2U  is  the  nearest 
antecedent.  On  the  whole,  it  is  best,  in  a  case  so  doubtful,  to  retain  the 
Hebrew  collocation  with  all  its  ambiguity.  The  word  surrendered,  used  by 
Henderson  in  this  verse,  is  not  only  less  simple  than  the  common  version 
given,  but  confines  the  clause  too  strictly  to  the  act  of  the  besieged,  instead 
of  making  it  at  least  include  the  act  of  God  himself,  as  the  protector  of 
Jerusalem. 

11.  Behold,  thou  hast  heard  u- hat  the  lings  of  Assyria  have  done  to  all 
the  lands,  hy  utterly  destroying  them,  and  thou  shaft  be  delivered !  The 
interjection  behold  appeals  to  these  events  as  something  perfectly  no- 
torious ;  as  if  he  had  said.  See  what  has  happened  to  others,  and  then 
judge  whether  thou  art  likely  to  escape.  The  pronoun  thou,  in  the  fii-st 
clause,  not  being  necessary  to  the  sense,  is,  according  to  analogy,  distinc- 
tive and  emphatic,  and  may  be  explained  to  mean,  thou  at  least  hast  heard, 
if  not  the  common  people.  In  the  last  clause,  the  same  pronoun  stands  in 
opposition  to  the  other  kings  or  kingdoms  who  had  been  destroyed.  This 
clause  is,  in  most  versions,  rendered  as  an  interrogation,  but  is  properly  aa 
exclamation  of  contemptuous  incredulity.  All  the  lands  may  either  be  an 
elliptical  expression  for  all  the  lands  subdued  hg  them,  or,  which  is  more  in 
keeping  with  the  character  of  the  discourse,  a  hyperbolical  expression  of 


58  ISAIAH  XXXVIl.  [Ver.  12,  13. 

the  speaker's  arrogance.  DO*">nn"?  strictly  means  to  doom  them,  or  devote 
tbom  irrevocably  to  destruction,  but  in  usage  commonly  includes  the  idea 
of  execution  as  well  as  of  design.  (Compare  the  note  on  chap.  li.  15). 
From  the  mention  of  the  kings  of  Assyria  in  the  plural,  some  writers  take 
occasion  to  accuse  liabsbakeh  of  intending  to  arrogate  the  glory  of  these 
conquests  to  St'nnacberib  exclusively,  whereas  the  latter  did  not  dare  to  do 
so  in  addressing  Ilezekiab.  But  others,  with  more  probability,  infer  that 
the  singular  form,  employed  by  Rabshakeh,  is  itself  to  be  understood  col- 
lectively, like  king  of  liahylon  in  the  fourteenth  chapter. 

12.  Did  the  godn  of  the  nationa  deliver  them,  which  my  father$  destroyed, 
{to  tcit,)  Guzan,  and  Ilaran,  and  Jiezeph,  and  the  children  of  Eden  trhich  i'« 
(or  who  were)  in  Telassar  ?  Here  again  the  collocation  of  the  worJs  makes 
the  construction  doubtful,  though  the  general  sense  is  clear.  cn^N  may 
cither  be  referred  to  lands  in  the  preceding  verse  (the  masculine  form  being 
then  a  licence,  or  perhaps  a  sign  that  by  the  lands  we  are  to  understand 

the  people  who  inhabited  them),  or  to  ^"^T'^<,  or  to  D*13,  or  it  may  be  con- 
nected with  Tii'K  in  the  sense  of  llwse  whom ,  which  appears  to  be  preferred 
by  Hitzig.  The  construction  then  is.  Did  the  gods  if  the  tialiuns  deliver 
those  whom  my  fathers  destroyed.^  With  respect  to  the  places  mentioned  in 
the  second  clause,  all  that  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  just  imderstanding 
of  the  sentence  is,  that  they  were  well  known,  both  to  speaker  and  hearer, 
as  Assyrian  conquests.  The  dilhculty  of  identifying  some  of  them  atibrds 
an  incidental  argument  in  favour  of  the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  the 
passage.  Gozan  is  probably  the  modern  Kaii.Jtan,  the  Ganzanitis  of 
Ptolemy,  a  region  of  Mesopotamia,  situated  on  the  Chaboras,  to  which  a 
portion  of  the  ton  tribes  were  transferred  by  Shalmaneser.  Jfiran  was  a 
city  of  Mesopotamia,  where  Abraham's  father  died,  the  t'arrae  of  the 
Romans,  and  famous  for  the  great  defeat  of  Crassus.  liezeph,  a  common 
name  in  oriental  geography,  here  denotes  probably  the  liessapha  of  Ptolemy, 
a  town  and  proviucu  in  PalmjTcne  S^'ria.  Eden  means  pleasure  or  delight, 
and  seems  to  have  been  given  as  a  name  to  various  places.  Having  been 
thus  applied  to  a  district  in  the  region  of  mount  Lebanon,  the  native 
Christians  have  been  led  to  regard  that  as  the  site  of  the  torrestial  para- 
dise. Equally  groundless  are  the  conclusions  of  some  learned  critics  as  to 
the  identity  of  the  place  here  mentioned  with  the  garden  of  Edon.  In 
Isa.  li.  8,  the  reference  is  not  to  a  country  well  known  and  distingnished 
for  its  fertility  (Barnes),  but  to  the  garden  of  Eden  as  a  matter  of  history. 
Such  allusions  prove  no  more,  as  to  the  site  of  the  garden,  than  the  similar 
allusions  of  modern  orators  and  poets  to  any  delightful  rrgion  as  on  Eden 
or  a  Paradise.  Even  the  continued  application  of  the  name  in  prose,  as  a 
geographical  term,  proves  no  more  than  the  use  of  such  a  name  as  Mount 
Pleasant  in  American  geograph}'.  The  inference,  in  this  place,  is  especially 
untenable,  because  the  word  sons  or  children,  prefixed  to  Eden,  leaves  it 
doubtful  whether  the  latter  is  the  name  of  a  place  at  all,  and  not  rather 
that  of  a  person,  whose  descendants  were  among  the  races  conquered  by 
A8S}Tia.  The  relative  pronoun  may  agree  grammaticully  either  with  sons 
or  l\den,  and  the  form  of  the  verb  to  be  supplied  must  bo  varied  accord- 
ingly. Tel-assar,  which  Gosenius  thinks  may  be  identical  with  the  Ellasar 
ofOcn.  xiv.  1,  where  it  is  substituted  for  the  latter  by  the  Targum  of 
Jerusalem,  appears  to  be  analogous  in  form  to  the  liabylonian  names,  Tel- 
abib,  Til-melah,  Tel-hasha,  in  all  of  which  lei  means  hill,  and  corresponds 
to  the  English  mount  in  nanu-s  of  places. 

13.  Where  is  the  king  of  J/amuth,  and  the  king  of  Arpad,  and  the  king  of 


Yer.  14.]  ISAIAR  XXXVII.  59 

the  city  Sepharvaim,  Henah  and  Icvah  ?  The  question  implies  that  they 
were  nowhere,  or  had  ceased  to  be.  The  first  three  names  occur  in  the 
same  order  in  Rabshakeh's  speech  (chap,  xxxvi.  19),  and  the  remaining 
two  also  in  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xviii.  31).  As  the  love  of  uni- 
formity and  assimilation  here  betrayed  is  on  the  part  of  the  pretended 
older  writer,  the  German  critics  have  discreetly  overlooked  it.  Of  Hena, 
nothing  whatever  is  known,  and  of  Ivvah  only  that  it  may  be  identical 
with  the  Avva  of  2  Kings  xvii.  24,  from  which  Assyrian  colonists  were 
transferred  to  Sammaria.  The  absence  of  all  further  trace  of  these  two 
places,  and  the  peculiar  form  of  the  names,  led  J.  D.  MichaeHs  to  follow 
Symmachus  and  Jonathan  in  making  both  words  verbs  or  verbal  nouns, 
implying  that  the  kings  just  mentioned  had  been  utterly  subverted  and  de- 
stroyed. But  this  interpretation,  although  highly  plausible  in  this  one 
case,  is  much  less  natural,  if  not  wholly  inadmissible,  in  2  Kings  xviii.  34. 
It  would  be  easy  to  affirm,  no  doubt,  that  the  writer  of  the  latter  passage 
misunderstood  the  one  before  us  ;  but  from  this  suggestion  even  Gesenius 
and  his  followers  are  precluded  by  their  foregone  conclusion  that  the  text 
in  Kings  is  the  more  ancient  of  the  two.  Another  explanation  of  these 
words  is  that  suggested  by  Luzzatto,  who  regards  them  as  the  names  of 
the  deities  worshipped  at  Hamath,  ArpaJ,  and  Sepharvaim,  and  takes  1?0 
in  the  sense  of  idol  or  tutelary  god,  which  last  idea  is  as  old  as  Clericus. 
This  ingenious  hypothesis  Luzzatto  endeavours  to  sustain  by  the  analogy  of 
Adrammelech  and  Anamnielech,  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim  (2  Kings  xvii.  31), 
the  second  of  which  names  he  regards  as  essentially  identical  with  Hena. 
In  favour  of  this  exposition,  besides  the  fact  already  mentioned  that  the 
names,  as  names  of  places,  occur  nowhere  else,  it  may  be  urged  that  it 
agrees  not  only  with  the  context  in  this  place,  but  also  with  2  Kings 
xviii.  34,  in  which  the  explanations  of  the  words  as  verbs  or  nouns  is  inad- 
missible. This  explanation,  and  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests,  are  at 
least  entitled  to  a  fair  comparison  with  that  first  given,  as  the  one  ap- 
proved by  most  interpreters.  Musculus  understands  the  dual  form  of 
Sephan-aiin  as  denoting  that  it  consisted  of  two  towns,  perhaps  on  diffe- 
rent sides  of  the  Euphrates,  and  that  Hena  and  Icvah  were  the  distinc- 
tive names  of  these.  The  particular  mention  of  the  city  Sepharvaim, 
and  the  construction  of  that  word  with  ^,  are  peculiarities  not  easily  ac- 
counted for.  The  substitution  of  H'N  for  VS  (2  Ivings.  xix.  13)  is  of 
course  ascribed  by  Gesenius  and  Knobel  to  the  later  writer's  fondness 
for  exact  uniformity,  his  own  violations  of  it  to  the  contrary'  notwith- 
standing. 

14.  And  Rezelciah  took  the  letters  from  the  hand  of  the  messengers,  and  read 
it,  and  went  up  {to)  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  Hezehiah  spread  it  before  Jehovah. 
As  nothing  had  been  previously  said  respecting  letters,  we  must  either 
suppose  that  the  preceding  address  was  made  not  orally  but  in  writing,^  or 
that  both  modes  of  communication  were  adopted.  The  latter  is  most  pro- 
bable in  itself,  and  agrees  best  with  the  statement  iu  2  Chron.  xxxii.  17, 
that  besides  the  speeches  which  his  servants  spake  against  the  Lord  God, 
and  against  his  servant  Hezekiah,  Sennacherib  nrotc  letters  to  rail  on  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel  and  to  sprah  against  him.  The  singular  pronoun  (j^) 
refen-ing  to  the  plural  antecedent  [letters),  is  explained  by  David  Kimchi 
distributively,  as  meaning  every  one  of  them ;  by  the  Targum,  as  meaning 
simply  one  of  them,  i.  e.  accordin^^  to  Joseph  Kimchi,  the  one  that  contained 
the  Lilasphemy.  Luzzatto  supposes  that  it  was  customary  to  send  duplicate 
•of  the  same  letter,  as  the  modern  Samaritans  did  in  their  correspondences 


60  ISAIAE  XXXVII.  [Vef..  15. 

with  Job  Ludolf,  aud  that  Hezekiah,  thou{,'b  he  took  both  or  all,  had  no 
occasion  to  read  more  than  one  of  thorn.  This  is  certainly  in^'enious  and 
plausible  ;  but  perhaps  the  most  salisfuctorv  explanation  is,  that  DHED,  hke 
the  Latin  liUia ,  had  come  to  hignify  a  single  letter,  and  might  be  therefore 
treated  indiscriminately  either  as  a  singular  or  a  plural  form.  This  is  the 
more  probable,  because  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  Sennacherib  would 
write  more  than  one  letter  to  Hezekiah  on  this  one  occasion,  unless  in  the 
way  suggested  by  Luzzato,  which  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity  or 
evidence.  That  he  wrote  at  the  same  time  to  the  chief  men  or  the  people, 
is  an  arbitrary  and  improbable  assumption,  and  even  supposing  that  he  did, 
why  should  Hezekiah  be  described  as  receiving  all  the  letters  ?  Some  ver- 
sions wholly  disregard  the  diflerenco  of  number.  Thus  the  Septuagint  and 
Luther  make  both  noun  aud  pronoun  singular,  while  Calvin  and  the  Vulgate 
make  both  plural.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix.  14)  removes  all 
appearance  of  irregularity  by  reading  them  instead  of  it.  This  is  so  glaring 
an  exception  to  the  sweeping  allegation  of  a  constant  disposition,  in  the  text 
before  us,  to  remove  anomalies  and  seeming  incongruities,  that  Gesenius  is 
under  the  necessity  of  finding  some  expedient  for  the  vindication  of  his 
darling  theory-.  This  he  plausibly  accomplishes  by  saying,  that  as  both 
texts  have  the  singular  form  spread  it  in  the  other  clause,  the  later  writer 
chose  to  assimilate  the  phrase  in  question  to  this,  and  not  to  the  preceding 
plural  noun.  It  docs  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  the  ingenious  special 
pleader,  tbat  the  last  it  needs  as  much  to  be  explained  as  the  first,  and  that 
such  a  copyist  as  he  sui^poses,  instead  of  saying  read  it,  because  he  was  going 
to  say  spread  it  afterwards,  would  naturally  first  say  read  them,  and  then 
say  spread  tlietn  for  the  sake  of  unifonuity.  Such  explanations  appear 
almost  puerile  compared  with  the  obvious  and  simple  supposition  of  two 
draughts  or  copies  by  the  selfsame  writer.  Another  characteristic  observa- 
tion of  Gesenius  on  this  verse  is,  that  Hezekiah  must  have  spread  the  letter 
in  the  temple  in  order  to  let  Jehovah  read  it  from  the  Holy  of  Hohes,  and  that 
accordingly  in  ver.  10,  ho  is  called  upon  to  open  his  eyes,  which  he  says 
reminds  him  of  the  praying  machines  of  Thibet.  This  specimen  of  exe- 
getical  wit  is  eagerly  caught  up  and  repeated  by  later  and  inferior  writers. 
The  spreading  of  the  letter  before  God  is  supposed  by  Clericus  to  have 
been  designed  to  excite  the  feelings  and  the  prayers  of  the  people,  by 
Calvin  to  affect  the  feelings  of  the  king  himself.  It  seems,  however, 
to  have  been  no  studied,  calculated  movement,  but  a  natural  expression  (if 
anxiety  and  tnist  in  God,  as  a  protector  and  a  confidential  friend  ;  a  state 
of  mind  which  to  an  infidel  must  needs  appear  ridiculous.  As  any  man 
would  carry  an  open  letter,  which  troubled  or  perjilexod  him,  to  a  friend 
for  sympathy  and  counsel,  so  the  pious  king  spriads  this  blasphemous 
epistle  before  God,  as  the  occasion  and  subject  of  his  prayers.  Josephus 
says  lie  left  it  afterwards  rolled  up  in  the  temple,  of  which  there  is  no 
record  in  the  narrative  before  us.  He  also  says  that  Hezekiah  lay  pros- 
trate, in  the  Jewish  manner,  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  from  which  it 
might  seem  that  he  took  IHL'nD*  in  the  sense  of  stretched  himself,  which 
would  be  ungrammatical  and  contrary  to  usage.  But  Vitringa  is  no  doubt 
correct  in  his  opinion,  that  Jostphus  had  no  reference  to  this  word,  but  to 
the  signs  of  mourning  mentioned  in  the  first  and  second  verses,  with  which 
he  would  naturally  associate  i)rostration  as  their  usual  accompaniment. 
(Sec  for  example  1  Chron.  xxi.  K!., 

15.   Avd  Hezekiah  pratjed  to  .lehnvah,  saying  (what  follows   in  the  next 
verse).     Uendewerk  observes  that  this  mode  of  proceeding  was  charac- 


Ver.  16.J  ISAIAH  XXXVII.  61 

teristic  of  a  person  raore  like  David  in  devotion  than  in  energy  and  enter- 
prise. With  a  far  superior  apiireciation  of  the  good  king's  character,  Gill 
quaintly  says  that,  instead  of  answering  the  letter  himself,  he  prays  the 
Lord  to  answer  it.  Instead  of  tn,  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix  15)  has 
before  Jelinvnh. 

16.  Jchorah  of  Iio.it>!,  God  of  Israel,  dicellinr/  hctween  (or  sittinf/  upon)  the 
cherxhim,  thou  art  he,  the  God  {i.  e.  the  only  true  God),  thou  alone,  to  all 
the  /.inf/doms  of  the  earth  ;  thou  hast  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  The 
parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix._  15)  omits  01X2^',  upon  which  Gesenius 
remarks  that  the  combination  here  used  is  very  common  in  the  prophecies, 
while  it  scarcely  occurs  at  all  in  the  historical  books.  What  can  be  more 
natural,  therefore,  than  that  Isaiah  should  employ  it  in  the  case  before  us, 
and  the  simple  prose  form  in  the  book  of  Kings  ?  This  is  surely  a  more 
ol)viou3  conclusion  than  the  one  which  Gesenius  draws,  viz.,  that  the  later 
copyists  and  compilers  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  altered  the  text 
at  will,  to  make  it  suit  the  customary  form  of  expression  in  their  own  day. 
The  cherubim  were  visible  representations  of  spiritual  beings,  or,  as  Bahr 
and  Hengstenberg  suppose,  of  the  perfection  of  the  creature  in  its  highest 
form.  The  name  is  most  probably  derived  from  3"lD,  as  a  synonyme  of  3")p, 
to  approach,  or  as  a  transposition  of  32"l,  to  ride,  in  allusion  to  the  angels 
as  the  bearers  of  God's  chariots.  This  last  verb  is  connected  with  the  noun 
in  Ps.  xviii.  11.  Eichhorn's  attempt  to  identify  the  word  with  the  yrj-ri;  or 
grijfins  of  Eastern  mythology  has  been  repeated  by  some  later  M'riters,  but 
with  small  success.  Some  suppose  an  allusion,  in  the  case  before  us,  to 
Jehovah's  riding  on  the  cherubim  (Ps.  xviii.  11),  or  angels  through  the  air; 
others  to  his  being  enthroned  above  the  material  cherubs  in  the  temple. 
This  sense  is  given  by  Luther  and  the  ancient  versions,  but  Calvin  and 
many  later  writers  understand  him  to  bo  here  described  as  dwellinc)  between 
the  cherubim.  (Compare  Exod.  xxv.  22.)  In  either  case  there  is  allusion  to 
his  manifested  presence  over  the  mercy-seat,  called  by  the  later  Jews 
shcchinah,  which  word  is  itself  used  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  of  the  verse 
before  us.  Forcrius  translates  the  Hebrew  phrase  without  a  preposition, 
inhabitant  of  the  cherubim,  which  would  seem,  however,  to  describe  God  as 
dwelling  in  the  images,  not  over  them  or  under  the  shadow  of  their  wincrs. 
The  pronoun  N'lH  is  understood  by  some  as  an  emphatic  or  intensive  addi- 
tion, like  the  Latin  ipse  .-.thou  thyself  (art)  the  God,  kc.  Others  regard  it 
as  an  idiomatic  substitute  for  the  copula  or  verb  of  existence,  used  with  all 
the  persons,  thou  art  the  God,  itc.  But  on  the  general  principle  of  adher- 
ing to  the  strict  sense  of  words  where  it  is  possible,  it  is  best  to  trans- 
late it  thou  (art)  he,  and  to  regard  what  follows  as  explanatory  of  this 
pregnant  and  concise  expression.  The  God  (fall  the  h'ngdonvi  of  the  earth 
is  not  an  exact  translation  of  the  Hebrew  words,  in  which  the  God  stands 
by  itself  as  an  emphatic  phrase,  meaning  the  only  God,  the  true  God,  and 
what  follows  is  intended  to  suggest  a  contrast  with  the  false  gods  of  the 
nations.  73?  is  not  simply  of  all,  in  all,  for  all,  or  over  all,  but  with 
re!<pecf  to  all.  Thou  art  the  one  true  God,  not  only  with  respect  to  us, 
but  with  respect  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  reason  follows  :  be- 
cause thou  hast  made  them  all,  and  not  the  earth  only,  but  the  heavens 
also.  All  this  is  indirectly  a  reply  to  the  Assyrian  blasphomies,  which 
questioned  the  almighty  power  of  Jehovah,  and  put  him  on  a  level  with  the 
idols  of  the  heathen.  The  same  antithesis  betwen  the  impotence  of  idols 
and  the  power  of  God  as  shewn  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  occurs  in  Ps. 
xcn.  5,  and  Jer.  x.  11. 


62  ISAIAH  XXXI'II.  [Ver.  17. 

17.  liotc  thine  ear,  0  Jehovah,  and  hear  ;  open  thine  eyes,  0  JeJiovah,  and 
tee  ;  and  hear  all  the  tiords  of  Sennacherib,  uhich  he  hath  sent  (or  uho  hath 
sent)  to  rejiroack  the  livituj  tiod.  These  expressions  are  ent  rely  analogous 
to  those  in  many  other  places,  where  God  is  entreated  to  see  and  hear,  i.e. 
to  act  as  if  he  saw  and  heard.  The  attempt  of  (resenius  and  his  followers 
to  restrict  them  to  the  reading  of  the  letter  or  the  hearing  it  read,  neither 
requires  nor  deserves  refutation.  Gesenius  also  takes  "^TV.  as  a  singular, 
suhstituted  for  the  plural  "^^TV.  of  tho  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix.  IG), 
through  the  tninscriLer's  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  idiom,  which  always 
speaks  of  turning  one  ear,  but  of  opening  both  eyes.  If  this  distinction  is 
as  natural  and  obvious  as  he  represents,  it  is  strange  that  even  a  transcriber, 
to  whom  the  Hebrew  was  vernacular,  thould  not  have  been  aware  of  it. 
Supposing,  however,  that  Isaiah  wrote  both  narratives,  there  would  be 
nothing  more  surprising  in  his  saying  eyes  in  one  and  ei/e  in  the  other, 
than  there  is  in  the  coexistence  of  such  forms  as  word  of  (jod  and  words  of 
God,  his  mercif  and  his  7neuies,  where  the  predominance  of  one  form  does 
not  preclude  the  occasional  occurrence  of  the  other.  Gesenius,  moreover, 
did  not  think  it  necessary  to  inform  his  readirs  of  the  fact,  which  Hender- 
son has  brought  to  light,  that  more  than  fifty  manuscripts,  and  nearly 
twenty  editions,  have  the  usual  plural  form  T^^V,  an  amount  of  evidence 
ten  times  as  great  as  that  which  Gesenius,  in  other  cases,  thinks  enough  to 
justify  the  boldest  changes  in  the  text.  Still  less  did  he  consider  himself 
called  upon  to  mention,  that  the  common  reading  ^5*^  itself  may  be  a  plural 
form,  according  to  analogy,  as  stated  expressly  by  himself  in  his  lA-hnjelaudc 
(p.  215)  and  his  smaller  Grammar  (§  85,  Remark  8).  Least  of  all  did  ho 
see  cause  to  state,  that  this  explanation  of  the  form  is  rendered  almost  neces- 
sary' here  by  the  parallelism,  because  if  ''[TV.  were  written  instead  of  "H^'lt 
merely  because  of  a  pause  in  the  sentence,  then  1^?^?,  which  occupies  the 
verj-  same  position  in  the  other  member,  would  be  written  l^t**,  and  as  this 
is  not  the  case,  the  obvious  conclusion  is,  that  the  sei/hol  in  "^TV.  is  the 
union-vowel  of  a  plural  noun  before  the  suffix,  with  the  '  omitted  as  in 
Exod.  xxxiii.  18,  and  other  cases  cited  by  Gesenius  in  his  grammars.  The 
fact  that  l^V  has  a  stronger  disjunctive  accent  than  "j^TN,  instead  of  weaken- 
ing confirms  the  argument,  because  if  the  former  were  in  pause,  the  structure 
of  the  sentence  would  require  the  latter  to  be  so  too.  What  Gesenius  says 
in  reference  to  the  use  of  the  word  Hosts  in  the  preceding  verso,  viz.,  that 
it  throws  light  upon  other  critical  phenomena,  may  be  applied  with  justice 
to  his  own  style  of  criticism  in  the  case  before  ns.  Instead  of  assuming, 
as  he  often  does  without  a  tithe  of  the  same  evidence,  that  T^V  is  the  true 
text,  or  reflecting  that  13*y  itself  may  be  a  plural  according  to  his  own 
shewing  elsewhere,  and  must  be  a  plural  according  to  the  favourite  rule  of 
parallt  lism,  he  first  takes  for  granted  that  it  is  a  singular,  and  then  makes 
use  of  it  not  only  as  a  deviation  from  the  older  copy,  but  as  characteristic 
of  an  ignorant  and  therefore  a  later  writer.  For  by  some  strange  process 
it  has  been  discovered,  that  the  later  Hebrew  writers  were  not  only  inferior 
in  composition,  but  in  knowledge  of  the  idioms  of  the  language,  whereas  in 
Greece  and  llome  the  decline  of  original  composition  coincided  with  the 
rise  and  progress  of  grammatical  science.  The  only  end  for  which  these 
inconsistencies  are  point«.d  out,  is  that  the  reader  may  correctly  estimate 
authoritative  dicta  of  the  same  kind  elsewhere.  The  simplest  version  of 
^T'l^'  "C'K  is,  t(7io  htis  sent.  To  express  the  idea,  which  he  has  sent,  usage 
would  seem  to  require  a  suffix  with  the  verb,  and  accordingly  we  read  in 
2  Kings  xix.   10,  in^K'  X'N,  i.  c.  which  he  lius  sent,  referring  irregularly  to 


Yer.  18,  19.]  ISAIAH  XXXVII.  G3 

the  plural  uonh,  or  vho  has  sntt  him,  moaning  Rabshakeb,  wbicb  is  the 
construction  given  in  the  English  version  of  that  passage. 

18.  It  is  true,  0  Jehovah,  the  li»(/s  of  Assyria  have  trastvd  all  the  lands 
and  their  land.  The  first  word  in  the  original  is  a  particle  of  concession, 
admitting  the  truth  of  what  Sennacherib  had  said,  so  far  as  it  related  merely 
to  his  conquest  of  the  nations  and  destruction  of  their  idols.  The  repeti- 
tion, lands  and  land,  has  much  perplexed  interpreters.  Vitriuga  suppHcs 
nations  or  peoples  before  lands,  as  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  13.  Others  suppose 
mvix  itself  to  be  here  used  in  the  sense  of  nations,  as  the  singular  seems 
somttimes  to  denote  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  or  land.  This  supposition 
would  account  at  the  same  time  for  the  masculine  suffix  in  D^IN.  Gesenius 
follows  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Augusti  in  giving  this  sulfix  a  reflexive  sense, 
or  refen'ing  to  the  Assyrians  themselves  [their  ami  land).  The  meaning 
then  is  that  they  had  destroyed  not  only  other  countries  but  their  own, 
which  agrees  exactly  with  the  charge  against  the  king  of  Babylon  in  chap, 
xiv.  20,  lltou  shalt  not  be  joined  with  them  in  burial,  because  thou  hast  de- 
stroyed thy  land  and  slain  thy  people.  As  this  sense,  however,  is  not  so 
appropriate  here,  where  Hezekiah  is  confimiing  what  Sennacherib  himself 
had  said,  it  is  better  to  adopt  one  of  the  other  constinictions,  which  brings 
the  sentence  into  strict  agreement,  not  as  to  form  but  as  to  sense,  with  the 
parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix.  17),  where  we  have  the  unambiguous  term 
nations.  This  is  justly  described  by  Rosenmiiller  as  the  easier  construction 
of  the  two,  which  would  militate  against  the  foregone  conclusion  of  the  later 
Germans,  as  to  the  relative  antiquitv  and  characteristic  features  of  the  two 
texts.  Gesenius,  therefore,  while  he  grants  that  the  form  of  expression  in 
the  case  before  us  is  harsher  and  more  difficult,  alleges,  with  perverse  in- 
genuity, that  this  arose  from  the  attempt  to  remove  another  incongruity, 
to  wit,  the  application  of  the  verb  3"in  to  persons,  in  avoiding  which  the 
copyist  committed  the  solecism,  lands  and  their  land.  But  this  hypothesis, 
besides  its  fanciful  and  arbitrary  character  as  a  mere  makeshiit,  and  its 
gratuitous  assumption  of  the  grossest  stupidity  and  ignorance  as  well  as 
inattention  in  the  writer,  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  emphatic  combina- 
tion of  the  same  verb  and  noun  in  chap.  Ix.  12.  Even  if  that  were  a  com- 
position of  a  later  writer  than  Isaiah,  it  would  prove  that  such  a  writer 
could  not  have  been  so  shocked  at  the  expression  as  to  make  nonsense  of  a 
sentence  merely  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  it.  The  reader  will  do  well  to 
observe,  moreover,  that  the  same  imaginary  copyist  is  supposed,  in  different 
emergencies,  to  have  been  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  idioms  of  his  mother 
tongue,  and  yet  extremely  sensitive  to  any  supposed  violation  of  usage. 
Such  scruples  and  such  ignorance  are  not  often  found  in  combination.  A 
transcriber  unable  to  distinguish  sense  from  nonsense  would  not  be  apt  to 
take  oflence  at  mere  irregularities  or  eccentricities  in  the  phraseology  or 
diction  of  his  author. 

19.  And  given  (or  put)  their  gods  iyito  the  Jire — -for  they  (trere)  no  gods, 
hut  wood  and  stone,  the  work  of  men^s  hands — and  destroyed  them.  Lfost 
interpreters  separate  the  clauses  and  translate  DniK^I  therefore  (or  so)  they 
hare  destroyed  them.  But  the  true  construction  seems  to  be  the  one  pro- 
posed by  Henderson,  who  connects  this  verb  directly  with  the  first  clause, 
and  throws  the  intervening  member  into  a  parenthesis.  Instead  of  the 
peculiar  idiomatic  use  of  the  infinite  {\^}),  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings 
xvii.  18)  has  the  preterite  (l^ri^)  a  substitution  of  an  easy  for  a  difficult  con- 
struction so  undeniable  that  Gesenius  can  escape  from  it  only  by  asserting 
that  the  form  here  used  belongs  to  the  later  Hebrew,  an  assertion  which 


64  ISAIAU  XXXVII.  [Ver.  20,  21. 

not  one  of  his  followers  has  ventured  to  repeat,  while  Hendewerk  flatly 
contradicts  it.  Knobel  strangely  imagines  that  Hezekiah  here  accuses  the 
Assyrian  of  impiety  towards  those  whom  he  acknowledged  to  he  gods, 
whereas  throughout  this  verse,  and  that  before  it,  he  is  simply  acknowledg- 
ing that  Sennacherib  had  destroyed  the  iflols  of  the  nations,  and  assigning 
a  reason  for  it,  viz.  that  they  were  no  gods,  but  material  idols.  The  ap- 
plication of  the  word  ijods  to  the  mere  external  image  is  common  in  profane 
as  well  as  sacred  writings,  and  arises  from  the  fact  that  all  idolaters, 
whatever  they  may  theoretically  hold  as  to  the  nature  of  their  ileities, 
identify  them  practically  with  the  stocks  and  stones  to  which  they  pay  their 
adorations. 

20.  And  now,  0  Jehorah  our  God,  save  ux  from  his  hand,  and  all  the  king- 
doms of  the  earth  shall  knoir,  that  thou  Jehovah  art  alone  (or  that  thou  alon^ 
art  Jehovah)  The  adverb  now  is  here  used  both  in  a  temporal  and  logical 
sense,  as  equivalent,  not  only  to  at  hn(ith,  or  be/ore  it  is  ton  late,  but  also 
to  therefore,  or  since  these  thinrjs  are  so.  The  fact  that  Sennacherili  had 
destroyed  other  nations,  is  urged  as  a  reason  why  the  Lord  should  inter- 
pose to  rescue  his  own  people  from  a  like  destraction  ;  and  the  fact  that 
he  had  really  triumphed  over  other  gods,  as  a  reason  why  he  should  bo 
taught  to  know  the  diflfereuce  between  them  and  Jehovah.  The  argument 
or  motive  here  presented,  although  sneered  at  by  the  intidel  interpreters,  is 
not  only  common  in  the  Scriptures,  but  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  a  God. 
The  considerations  which  make  such  a  motive  unbecoming  in  the  ca.se  of 
creatures  are  entirely  inapplicable  to  the  Supreme  Being.  The  requisition 
of  a  sentimental  modesty  on  his  part  only  shows  that  he  who  makes  it  has 
no  higher  conception  of  a  God  than  as  a  vague  sublimation  of  humanity. 
The  construction  of  iy*l*  as  an  optative  {let  all  the  Icinfjdoms  of  the  earth 
knon),  or  a  subjunctive  (that  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  may  knoir), 
although  admissible,  ought  not  to  be  preferred  to  the  future  proper,  where 
the  latter  yields  a  sense  so  good  in  itself  and  so  wtU  suited  to  the  context. 
The  last  words  of  the  verse  may  either  mean,  that  thou  Jehovah  art  the  only 
one  [i.e.  as  appears  from  the  connection,  the  only  true  God),  or,  that  ilmu 
alone  art  Jehovah,  with  particular  allu'^ion  to  the  propir  import  of  that  name 
as  signifying  absolute,  eternal,  independent  existence.  The  last  construc- 
tion is  prefen*ed  by  Hitzig ;  but  the  first,  which  is  adopted  by  Gesenius,  is 
also  recommended  by  its  more  exact  agreement  with  the  Masoretic  accents. 
It  need  scarcely  bo  added  that  these  questions  of  construction  do  not  affect 
the  general  sense,  which  is,  that  the  deliverance  of  his  people  from  Senna- 
cherib would  prove  Jehovah  to  be  infinitely  more  than  the  gods  of  the  nations 
whom  he  gloried  in  destroying. 

21.  And  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Anmz,  settt  to  Hezekiah,  saying.  Thus  saith  Jeho- 
rah, the  (rod  of  Israel,  {as  to)  irhaf  than  hast  prayed  to  me  [trith  respret^  to 
Srnnaehetih  kiny  of  Assyria,  (the  apodosis  follows  in  the  next  verse).  Vit- 
ringa's  supposition  that  the  communication  was  in  writing,  is  favoured  by  the 
analogy  of  vir.  11,  and  by  the  length  and  metrical  form  of  the  message  itself. 
Knobel  suggests  that  tbe  messenger  was  pmbably  a  younger  prophet. 
Why  Isaiah  corresjiondcd  thus  with  Hezekiah,  instead  of  speaking  with  him 
face  to  face,  as  he  did  in  other  ca.ses,  both  before  and  aft<r  this,  none  of 
the  interpreters  have  been  able  to  explain,  except  by  resolving  it  into  a 
positive  command  of  God.  J.  D.  Michaelis  connects  "t"i<  with  'T'N  in  the 
Bonso  of  /  to  whom  ;  but  this  use  of  the  first  person  in  immediato  combina- 
tion with  the  third,  although  not  unexampled,  is  too  nire  to  be  assumed 
without  necessity.     The  same  objection  lies  against  the  explanation  of  "^"i* 


Vee.  22.J  ISAIAR  XXXVII.  65 

us  a  conjunction  meaning  as,  ichereas,  forasmuch,  or  the  like.  The  same 
essential  meaning  is  obtained  by  making  it  as  usual  a  relative  pronoun, 
construed  adverbially,  a  form  of  speech  which  cannot  be  transferred  to  our 
idiom  without  the  introduction  of  a  proposition.  Gesenius  regards  it  as  an 
idiomatic  pleonasm,  and  accordingly  omits  it  in  his  version,  which  is  simplv, 
tli(jii  litist  praijt'd,  itc.  Lowth  follows  several  of  the  ancient  versions  in 
making  it  the  object  of  the  verb  TiyOlJ'  (/  liavc  heard),  which  he  inserts  in 
the  text  on  the  authority  of  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix.  20).  This 
emendation  would  be  highly  probable  but  for  the  fact  that  the  sacred  writers 
often  intentionally  varied  their  expressions  in  repeating  the  same  matter, 
for  the  proof  and  illustration  of  which  usage  see  Hengstenberg's  exposition 
of  the  fourteenth  and  eighteenth  Psalms  (Commentary,  vol.  i,  pp.  269,  372). 
Be  this  as  it  may,  no  stretch  of  ingenuity  can  make  the  construction  in 
Isaiah  easier  or  more  obvious  than  the  one  in  Kings.  Gesenius  therefore 
contents  himself  with  saying  that  the  later  writer  omitted  TlVD'J'  for  the 
sake  of  brevity,  and  yet  he  makes  him  use  Iti'X  in  a  sense  wholly  diflerent 
from  that  in  which  he  must  have  used  it  if  ^nyDti'  were  inserted.  Another 
dift'erence  between  the  two  texts  is  the  use  of  ?i*  here  in  the  place  of  yV. 
This  agrees  well  enough  with  the  hypothesis  that  ?^<  is  a  favourite  of  the 
later  writer,  but  not  at  all  with  the  assumption  that  his  changes  were  in- 
tended to  remove  irregularities  and  make  the  construction  easy.     7N  may 

either  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  ?y  {ai/ainxl)  in  this  connection,  or  be 
taken  in  the  wider  sense  of  as  to  or  concfrniiu/. 

22.  This  is  the  word  which  Jehovah  hath  spoken  concerning  (or  against)  him. 
The  virgin  daughter  of  Zion  hath  despised  thee,  she  hath  laughed  thee  to  scorn, 
the  daughter  of  Jerusalem  hath  shaken  her  head  after  thee.  There  is  no  need 
of  giving  irord  the  sense  of  decree,  or  even  prophecy.  The  simple  meaning 
is  that  what  follows  is  a  revelation  from  God  in  answer  to  the  vaunting  of 
Sennacherib  and  the  prayers  of  Hezekiah.  The  two  explanations  of  the 
preposition  /V,  between  which  interpreters  appear  to  be  divided,  ditier  only 
in  extent  and  definiteness.  For  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  |VV  02,  see  the 
note  on  chap.  i.  8  ;  for  the  construction  of  ripina,  that  on  chap,  xsiii.  12. 
As  all  interpreters  agree  that  this  last  word  is  in  apposition  (as  to  sense) 
with  ri3,  so  Hengstenberg  supposes  the  latter  to  sustain  the  same  relation 
to  |VV,  on  which  supposition  the  meaning  of  the  whole  phrase  is,  the  virgin 
daughter  of  Xiim,  i.  e.  Zion  considered  as  a  daughter  and  a  virgin.  It  mav 
be  a  personification  either  of  the  whole  church  and  nation,  or  of  the  city 
of  Jerusalem,  which  last  seems  more  appropriate  in  this  connection. 
J.  I).  Michaelis  and  Hitzig  understand  the  figure  of  virginity  as  meanmg 
thiif.  the  city  was  still  unconquered.  Calvin  and  Clericus,  with  strange 
inattention  to  the  form  of  the  original,  take  virgin  daughter  of  Zion  as  a 
vocative,  and  refer  the  verb  to  the  Assyrian  (lie  hath  despiied  thee,  O  virgin, 
&c.),  a  construction  utterl}'  prohibited,  not  only  by  the  masculine  form 
of  the  pronoun  thee,  which  might  bo  diflerently  pointed,  but  by  the  femi- 
nine termination  of  the  verbs,  which  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  text.  The 
sense  of  "innx  is  not  merely  at  thee,  but  after  thee  as  thou  fleest.  Hen- 
derson has  behind  thee,  which  is  only  defective  in  not  suggesting  the  idea 
of  his  tlight.  Luzzatto  endeavours,  but  without  success,  to  explain  the 
shaking  of  the  head  as  a  gesture  of  compassion  or  condolence,  even  where 
it  is  combined  with  other  tokens  of  contempt.  His  argument  rests  wholly 
on  a  supposititious  meaning  of  the  cognate  *113.     Miurer  and  Knobel  under- 

VOL.  II.  E 


66  ISAIAH  XXXril.  [Vkk.  28,  24. 

stand  by  shahiug  a  derisive  noddiuj;  or  vertical  nioticjn  of  the  head  accom- 
panied by  laughter.  Gescuius  supposes  that  a  wagf^ing  or  lateral  motion 
of  the  head,  although  not  used  by  us  for  such  a  pur|iOhe,  may  have  been 
common  as  a  gesture  of  derision  in  the  East,  the  rather  as  such  signs  are 
to  a  great  extent  conventional,  and  as  other  derisive  gestures  mentioned  in 
the  Scriptures,  such  as  clap|niig  the  hands,  are  equally  foreign  from  our 
habits  and  associations.  Ilitzig  supposes  that  the  shaking  of  the  head, 
with  the  Hebrews  as  with  us,  was  a  gesture  of  negation,  and  that  the  ex- 
pression of  scorn  consisted  in  a  tacit  denial  that  Sennacherib  had  been  able 
to  efi'cct  his  pur})0se.  Thus  understood,  the  action  is  equivalent  to  saying 
in  words,  no,  no  .'  i.  c.  he  could  not  do  it !  A  similar  explanation  of  this 
gesture  is  given  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  Commentary  on  Psalm  xxii.  8. 
The  meaning  of  the  whole  verse,  divested  of  its  figurative  dress,  is  that  the 
people  of  God  might  regard  the  threats  of  the  Assyrian  with  contempt. 

23.  WItom  hast  thou  reproached  and  reviled,  and  again>tt  tchom  hast  thou 
raised  {thy)  voice,  and  lijted  thine  eyes  {on)  hiyh  towards  (or  ayainxt)  tha 
Holy  One  of  Israel  .■  This  is  equivalent  to  saying.  Dost  thou  know  who  it 
is  that  thou  revilest  ?  To  raise  the  voice  may  timply  mesin  to  speak,  or 
more  emphatically  to  speak  buldly,  perhaps  with  an  allus-ion  to  the  literal 
loudness  of  llabshakeh's  address  to  the  people  on  the  wall  (chap,  xxxvi.  13). 
The  construction  Io/(i7iess  of  eijcs  (meaning  pri't/e)  is  inconsistent  both  with 
the  pointing  and  accentuation.  DTID  is  a  noun  of  place,  here  construed  as 
an  adverb,  and  in  sense  equivalent  to  hetirenuurds  or  touards  heaven.  The 
act  described  is  that  of  looking  up  to  heaven  as  he  uttered  his  blasphemies. 
The  English  and  many  other  versions  make  the  last  words  of  the  second 
clause  an  answer  to  the  foregoing  question.  (Ayainil  uhoni  '  &c.  Ayaimt 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel).  This  construction  is  retained  by  Gesenius,  but 
Ewald  carries  the  interrogation  through  the  verse,  and  renders  ^,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  last  clause,  thai  or  so  that,  while  Hitzig  makes  the  whole 
of  that  clause  an  exclamation.  This  construction  is  more  natural  than 
that  which  makes  the  answer  begin  in  the  middle  of  the  last  clause,  instead 
of  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse,  where  he  is  expressly  charged  with 
blasphemy  against  Jehovah. 

24.  JJy  the  hand  of  thy  servants  hast  thou  reproached  the  Ijord  and  said, 
With  the  multitude  of  my  chariots  (or  cavalry)  I  have  ascended  the  height 
of  mountains,  the  sides  of  Lebanon,  and  I  uill  cut  down  the  loftinss  of  its 
ceditrs  and  the  choice  of  its  frs  (or  cypresses),  and  1  will  reach  its  ej-t rente 
Iteight  (literally,  the  height  of  its  extremity^.,  its  garden-forest  (liternll}-, 
tlw  garden  of  its  forest).  This  may  be  regarded  either  as  the  substance  of 
another  message  actually  sent  by  Sennacherib,  or  as  a  translation  of  his 
feelings  and  his  conduct  into  words.  liy  the  hand  may  then  mean  simply 
through  (as  in  chap.  xx.  1),  or  refer  particularly  to  the  letters  mentioned 
in  ver.  14.  The  parallel  passage  has  n*3K7D,  thy  messengers,  a  variation 
just  as  likely  to  be  made  by  the  (»riginnl  writer  as  by  a  later  ci>j)yist.  The 
textual  reading  in  that  passage  has  3313  instead  of  3"i3,  which  is  given  in 
the  margin.  Gesenius  points  the  former  35^9,  and  translates  the  whole 
phrase  ttiVA  my  cJiariot  of  chariots  (3?T  being  often  us« d  collectively)  ».  e. 
my  iiuiumerable  chariots  (compare  Nahuni  iii.  17).  Ewald  points  it  33^, 
by  the  driving  if  my  chariots.  The  reiuliug  in  the  text  before  us.  and  in 
the  margin  of  the  other,  is  of  course  regarded  <is  an  attempt  to  simplify 
and  clear  up  an  obscure  expression,  a  tendency  diligently  noted  when  it 
ghowB  itself  on  the  right  or  rather  the  convenient  side.  Vilringa  gives  to 
^^,  here  as  in  chap.  xxi.  7,  the^  sense  of  cavalry;  but  other  interpreters 


Yer.  25.]  ISAIAU  XXXVIl.  G7 

appear  to  be  apreed,  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason,  in  this  case,  for 
departing  from  the  usual  and  proper  sense,  especially  as  little  would  be 
gained  by  it,  lofty  and  ruL'ged  mountains  being  scarcely  more  accessible  to 
horses  than  to  chariots.  Some  understand  the  sides  of  Lthanon  strictly  as 
denoting  its  acclivities  ;  others  with  more  probability  give  it  the  peculiar 
idiomatic  sense  of  extremities,  whether  of  length,  depth,  or  height,  the 
latter  being  here  required  by  the  connection.  (See  the  note  on  chap, 
xiv.  13.)  VPS  noip  is  explained  by  Clericus  to  mean  its  standing  cedars, 
but  by  other  interpreters  its  lofty  cedars,  as  the  parallel  expressions  mean 
its  cJioicc  firs  or  ci/j/resses.  (Compare  the  note  on  chap.  xiv.  8.)  The  ex- 
planation of  Carmel  as  a  proper  name  can  only  be  admitted  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  pronouns  in  this  clause  refer  to  Hezekiah  or  to  Judah.  If 
on  the  contrar}'  they  refer  to  Lebanon,  which  seems  the  only  natural  con- 
struction, ?^^"13  must  be  taken  in  its  primary  and  proper  sense  of  fruitful 
field,  vineyard,  garden,  orchard,  or  the  like.  It  is  here  combined  with 
forest,  cither  for  the  purpose  of  descriling  the  cedar  groves  of  Lebanon  as 
similar  to  parks  and  orchards,  or  of  designating  the  spot  where  the  culti- 
vated slope  of  the  mountain  is  gradually  changed  into  a  forest.  It  was 
long  supposed  that  the  only  cedar  grove  of  Lebanon  was  the  one  usually 
visited  near  the  highest  summit  of  the  range ;  but,  in  1805,  Seetzen  dis- 
covered two  others  of  gi-eater  extent,  and  the  American  missionaries  have 
since  found  many  trees  in  diflbrent  parts  of  the  mountain.  (Robinson's 
Palestine,  iii.  440.)  Instead  of  i'Sj?  Dlip  the  parallel  jiassage  has  pT>p 
•"'■'^*i?  {his  extreme  abode),  a  variation  both  in  sense  and  form,  which 
Gescnius  and  his  followers  think  decidedly  more  poetical  and  difficult 
than  that  before  us,  and  of  course  more  ancient,  as  the  inference 
happens  in  this  case  to  favour  the  foregone  conclusion.  Such  asser- 
tions are  best  answered  bj"  a  counter  assertion,  in  itself  at  least  as 
plausible,  that  the  diversity  is  just  such  as  might  have  been  expected  in 
the  case  of  one  and  the  same  writer.  The  reference  to  Lebanon  in  this 
verso  is  by  many  interpreters  literally  understood ;  but  why  should  tho 
Ass}Tian  attempt  or  even  threaten  so  absurd  a  passage  with  his  mounted 
troops,  when  a  shorter  and  easier  one  lay  open  to  him  ?  Others  regard 
Lebanon  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  or  of 
Judah,  or  of  Israel  in  general,  with  special  mention  of  Jerusalem,  of  the 
temple,  or  the  tower  of  Lebanon,  as  its  extreme  height  or  abode.  But  if 
we  take  into  consideration  the  whole  context,  and  the  strongly  hyperbolical 
expressions  of  the  other  messages  and  speeches  of  Sennacherib,  it  will  bo 
found  most  natural  to  imderstand  this  verse  as  a  poetical  assertion  of  the 
speaker's  power  to  overcome  all  obstacles. 

25.  /  hare  digged  and  drunl;  wafer,  and  I  will  dry  up  with  the  sole  of  my 
feet  (literally,  steps)  all  the  streams  of  J'Jggpt.  As  in  the  preceding  verse, 
he  begins  with  the  past  tense  and  then  changes  to  the  future,  to  denote 
that  he  had  begun  his  enterprise  successfully  and  expected  to  conclude 
it  triumphantly.  The  confusion  of  the  tenses,  as  all  futures  or  all  pre- 
terites, is  entirely  arbitrary,  and  the  translation  of  them  all  as  presents  is 
at  least  unnecessary',  when  a  stricter  version  not  only  yields  a  good  sense, 
but  adds  to  the  significance  and  force  of  the  expressions.  According  to 
Luzzato,  "lip  means  to  spring  up  or  gush  forth  as  a  fountain,  and  the  verse 
is  a  poetical  description  of  the  con(pieror  under  the  figure  of  a  stream  which 
drinks  in  its  tributary  waters  and  exhausts  all  other  rivers  in  its  course. 
This  last  expression  the  ingenious  rabbin  wisely  disguises  in  a  paraphrase, 
as  he  could   scarcely  have  found   any  reader,  Jew  or   Gentile,  who  would 


68  ISAIAH  XXXVII.  [Yer.  2G. 

tolerate  tLe  fij,'ure  of  one  stream  drying  up  others  with  the  *"/»'•<  of  ils  jWt. 
Another  orij^inal  interpretation  of  the  verse  is  that  proposed  by  Barnes,  who 
gives  the  usual  explanation  of  the  first  word,  but  applies  that  clause  to  the 
supply  of  the  Assyrian  cities  with  water.  The  obvious  objections  to  this 
exposition  are,  that  it  does  not  follow,  because  dipf^inti;  of  wells  is  a  public 
benefit  hi  desert  countries  and  among  nomadic  tribes,  that  the  supply  of  a 
great  kingdom  like  Assyria  would  be  so  described  ;  but  secondly  and  chiefly, 
that  the  parallelism  and  indeed  the  whole  connection  of  the  clauses  is  de- 
stroyed by  this  interpretation  of  the  first.  ^Vhat  coherence  is  there  between 
the  assertions  that  he  had  supplied  his  own  kingdom  with  water,  and  that  his 
army  was  numerous  enough  to  exhaust  the  streams  of  Egypt '?  Vitringa 
understands  the  first  clause  as  meaning  that  he  had  sated  liis  desire  of  con- 
quest, he  had  sought  and  found,  he  had  dug  for  water  and  slaked  his  thirst. 
The  objection  to  this  interpretation  is,  not  that  it  makes  the  first  clause 
figurative,  which  agrees  exacth'  with  the  style  of  the  whole  passage,  but 
that  it  makes  it  too  indefinite  to  match  the  other  clause  precisely.  If  the 
latter,  as  all  except  Luzzutto  seem  to  grant,  describes  the  march  of  a  great 
army,  there  is  a  natural  presumption  that  the  other  has  respect  to  the  same 
subject.  The  best  interpretation,  therefore,  on  the  whole,  is  that  which 
understands  the  verse  to  mean  that  no  difliculties  or  privations  could  retard 
his  march,  that  where  there  was  no  water  he  had  dug  for  it  and  found  it, 
and  that  where  there  was  he  would  exhaust  it,  both  assertions  implying  a  vast 
multitude  of  soldiers.  The  drying  up  of  the  rivers  with  the  soles  of  the  fet 
is  understood  by  Vitringa  as  an  allusion  to  the  Egj'ptian  mode  of  drawing 
water  with  a  tread-wheel  (Deut.  xi.  10).  Others  suppose  it  to  mean  that 
they  would  cross  the  streams  dry-shod,  which  does  not  seem  to  be  a  natural 
explanation  of  the  words.  Bochait  understands  the  sense  to  be  that  the 
dust  raised  by  their  march  would  choke  and  drA-  up  rivers.  In  favour  of 
supposing  an  allusion  to  the  draw  ing  out  of  wat<.'r,  is  the  obvious  reference 
to  digging  and  drinking  in  the  other  clause.  This  appears  to  preclude  the 
explanation  of  the  language  as  a  boast  that  the  elements  themselves  were 
subject  to  him,  not  unlike  that  which  Claudian  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
Alaric.  tSitbxidrir  )iosfns  sub  pedibus  wonten,  arescere  vidiiiiux  amnes.  Even 
there,  however,  the  literal  and  figurative  meanings  seem  to  nin  into  each 
other,  as  the  poet  adds  a  few  lines  lower,  frcgi  Aipes,  galtis  radum  viclri- 
cibus  Itatisi.  That  such  hyperboles  were  wont  to  be  applied  to  the  oriental 
armies,  we  may  learn  from  Juvenal,  i'reditrxus  altos  defccisse  amnes, 
epotaque  flumina  Mcdo.  The  old  interprotation  of  *1'V0  niN',  as  meaning 
the  waters  of  Jerusahm  while  in  a  state  of  siege,  or  the  moals  of  fortified 
places  in  general,  is  now  universally  abandoned  for  the  meaning  which  the 
same  words  have  in  chap.  xvi.  Ct.     (See  above,  p.  S'iO.) 

2(5.  Jfaxt  thiiu  not  heard  ?  From  afar  I  have  done  if,  from  the  dai/n  of 
old,  and  formed  it.  X'oir  I  hare  caused  it  to  come,  and  it  xhall  be  {or  come 
to  parni),  to  lay  irante,  [as  or  info  desolate  heajis,  fortified  cities.  ("h-ricuR 
makes  this  a  continuatiuii  of  the  speech  ascribed  to  Sennacherib,  who  is 
hero  boasting  that  he  (/.  e.  Assyria)  had  created  Egv'pt,  meaning  that  Kg>'pt 
was  peopled  from  Assyri.i.  which  was  now  about  to  lay  it  waste.  This 
int«'ri)retation  is  refuted  at  great  length  by  Vitringa,  whose  main  objection 
to  it  is,  that  Assyria  was  no  more  th»'  f<tunder  of  Egypt  than  of  any  other 
ancient  State.  Vitringa  supposes  this  interpretation  to  have  sprung  from 
an  unwillingness  to  recognise  the  doctrine  of  divine  decrees,  lint  such  a 
motive  cannot  be  imputed  to  Calvin,  who,  altliough  ho  agrees  with  most 
interpreters  in  making  these  the  words  of  God  himself,  refers  them  not  to 


^'1^1^-27.  ISAIAH  XXXVII .  69 

Lis  eternal  purpose,  but  to  his  having  made  Jerusalem  or  Zion  what  she 
was,  and  to  his  fixed  determination  to  preserve  her.     In  order  to  sustain 
this  explanation  of  the  first  clause,  he  is   obliged  to  read  the  second  inter- 
rogatively, which  is  altogether  arbitrary.     Most  writers,  ancient  and  modern, 
are  agreed  in  applying  the  first  clause,  either  to  express  predictions,  or  to  the 
purpose  and  decree  of  God.     The  sense  is  then  substantially  the  same  with 
that  of  chap.  x.  5,  15,  to  wit,  that  the  Assyrian  had  wrought  these  conquests 
only  as  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God,\vho  had  formed  and  declared  his 
purpose  long  before,  and   was   now  bringing  it  to  pass.     Hast  thou  not 
heard  f  may  either  be  a  reference  to  history  and  prophecy,  or  a  more  gene- 
ral expression  of  surprise  that  he  could  be  ignorant  of  what  was  so  notorious. 
Gesenius  directs  attention  to  the  form  '^'^h  in  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  ■ 
xix.  25)  as  less  usual ;  but  the  inference,  which  he  evidently  wishes  to  be 
drawn  from  this  variation,  is  precluded  by  the  use  of  the  same  combination 
here  in  the  phrase  pimo'?.     A  writer  who,  through  ignorance  or  want  of 
taste,  took   otlence  at  the  double   preposition  in  the   one  word,  could   not 
have  retained  it  in  the  other.     Instead  of  ^'^n•^,  Luzzato  reads  ^"IJ?5,  which 
is  unnecessary,  as  the  future  is  entirely  appropriate.     Most  writers  take  this 
as  the  second  person  of  the  verb,  and  thou  shaJt  be,  or  that  thou  shoiddcst 
he.     Ewald  more  simply  makes  it  the  third  person,  agreeing  with  the  noun 
to  which  the  pronoun  it  must  be  referred,  namely,  the   series  of  events  in 
which  Sennacherib  had  gloried.     The  parallel  passage  has  the  contracted 
form  niK'n?,  which,  as  being  unusual  and  irregular,  is   supposed   by  Gese- 
nius  to  have  been  amended  in    the    later   copy.     For  D'''?3  Lowth  reads 
D'13,  and  translates  the  whole  phrase,  warlike  nations.     Most  other  writers 
are  agreed  in  making  it  mcau  ruined  or  desolated  heaps.     The  construction 
is  that  of  a  double  accusative,  without  an  ellipsis  of  the  particle,  which  may, 
however,  be  supplied  in  English. 

27.  And  their  inhahitants  are  short  of  hand ;  they  are  hroken  and  con- 
founded;  they  are  grass  of  the  field  and  green  herbage,  grass  of  the  house-tops 
and  a  field  before  the  stalk  (or  standing  corn),  i.  e.  before  tli«*  "-rain 
has  grown  up.  This  may  be  regarded  either  as  a  description  of  the  weak- 
ness of  those  whom  the  Assyrian  had  subdued,  or  as  a  description  of  the 
terror  with  which  they  were  inspired  at  his  approach.  In  the  former  case 
this  verse  extenuates  the  glory  of  his  conquest,  in  the  latter  it  enhances  it. 
A  short  hand  or  arm  implies  inability  to  reach  the  object,  but  docs  not  ne- 
cessarily suggest  the  idea  of  mutilation.  In  a  negative  sense,  it  is  applied 
to  God,  Num.  xi.  23 ;  Isa.  1.  2,  lix.  1.  Here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the 
particle  of  comparison  is  not  expressed.  Green  hei-hofje,  literally,  the  green 
<f  herbage.  Barnes  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  ease  with  which  grass  is 
trodden  down  by  an  army ;  but  how  does  this  cohere  with  the  mention  of 
grass  upon  the  house-tops  ?  In  this  last  expression  there  is  reference  at 
once  to  the  flat  smface,  the  earthy  material,  and  the  various  uses  of  the 
oriental  house-top,  in  consequence  of  which  seeds  would  frequently  spring 
up  there,  but  without  depth  of  root,  and  therefore  short-hved.  The  com° 
parison  of  human  frailty  and  infirmity  to  gi-ass  is  very  common  in  the 
St-nptures.  ^  Instead  of  ^t^^:^•,  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix.  2G)  has 
^sn-J',  blasting  or  blasted  corn,  which  has  led  some  to  regard  non:;*  either  as 
an  error  of  transcription  or  as  an  orthographical  variation  of  the  other  word. 
It  this  be  so,  the  text  before  us  cannot  be  charged  with  always  giving  the 
preference  to  regular  and  familiar  forms.  But  as  the  plural  rilOTJ'  is°else- 
where  used  in  the  sense  oi fields,  this  may  be  here  retained,  the  idea  of  blast- 


70  ISAIAH  XXXVl I.  Ver.  28-30. 

irg  being  either  supplied  bv  the  connection,  or  omitted  altogether.  In  the 
latter  case,  the  comparison  is  simply  with  the  weakness  and  fragility  of  im- 
mature amm,  field  being  put  by  a  common  figure  for  its  contonta  or  pro- 
ducts. The  general  meaning  of  the  whole  verse  evidently  is  that  they  were 
unable  to  resist  him. 

28.  And  thy  sitting  down,  and  thy  going  out,  and  thy  coming  in,  I  have 
known,  and  thij  raging  (or  provoking  of  thystlf)  aguimt  me.  The  Targum 
explains  sitting  to  mean  sitting  in  council,  going  out — going  to  war,  and 
coming  in — the  invasion  of  Juduh.  It  is  commonly  agreed,  however,  that 
these  phrases  are  combined  to  signify  all  the  actions  of  his  life,  like  sitting 
doum  and  rising  up  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  2,  going  out  and  coming  in,  Deut.  xxviii.  6, 
1  Kings  iii.  7,  and  elsewhere,  the  latter  especially  in  reference  to  inihtary 
movements  (1  Sam.  x\'iii.  IG,  2  Sam.  v.  2). 

29.  Jiecauae  of  thy  raying  ayainst  me,  and  {because)  thy  arroyance  has 
come  up  into  my  ears,  I  u- ill  put  my  hooh  in  thy  nose,  and  my  bridle  in  thy 
lips,  and  I  will  cause  thee  to  return  by  the  uay  by  which  thou  earnest.  Tlie 
BeuBC  oi  tumult,  given  by  the  English  and  other  versions  to  PNt^',  is  fumided 
on  the  etymologj-  proposed  by  liabbi  Jonah,  who  derives  it,  through  jlKC, 
from  nXC.  The  more  obvious  derivation  is  from  the  verb  PNC  and  its 
root  I^<*^',  meaning  to  rest  or  he  (juiet,  from  which  we  may  readily  deduce 
the  ideas  of  security,  indifference,  nonchalance,  superciliousness,  and  arro- 
gance. However  dubious  the  etymology  may  be,  the  whole  connection 
makes  it  certain  that  the  word  is  expressive  of  something  in  the  conduct  of 
Sennacherib  offensive  to  Jehovah.  In  the  first  clause  there  is  an  abrupt 
change  of  construction  from  the  infinitive  to  the  finite  verb,  which  is  not 
uncommon  in  Hebrew,  and  which  in  this  case  does  not  at  all  obscure  the 
sense.  Another  solution  of  the  s\-ntax  is  to  take  IV  as  an  elliptical  expres- 
sion for  X*'N  jy*  or  *3  ]]3\  as  in  Num.  xx.  12,  and  1  Kings  xx.  42,  and 
make  nVy  agrte  with  both  the  verbal  nouns  preceding.  This  is  the  con- 
struction given  in  the  English  Version.  The  figures  in  the  last  clause  are 
drawn  from  the  customar}'  method  of  controlling  horses,  and  from  a  less 
familiar  mode  of  treating  buffaloes  and  other  wild  animals,  btill  practised 
in  the  East,  and  in  menageries.  (Compare  Ezek.  xix.  -1,  xxix.  4,  xxxviii.  4, 
Job  xli.  1.)  The  figuic  may  be  taken  in  a  general  sense  as  signifying 
failure  and  defeat,  or  more  specifically  as  referring  to  Sennacherib's  hasty 
flight. 

30.  And  this  to  thee  (0  Hezekiah,  shall  be)  the  sig7i  (of  the  fulfilment 
of  the  promise)  :  cat,  the  (prei^ent)  year,  that  which  groweth  of  itself,  ar.d 
the  second  year  that  which  sprivgeth  of  the  same,  nn<l  in  the  third  year  soto 
ye,  and  reap,  and  plant  vineyards,  and  cat  the  fruit  thereof.  The  preccd- 
mg  verse  closes  the  "address  to  the  Assyrians,  begun  in  ver.  22,  and  the 
Prophet  now  continues  his  message  to  Hezekiah.  It  is  commonly  agreed 
that  n'DD  denotes  voluntars-  growtli  or  products,  sui-h  as  spring  from  the 
seed  (Inippi'd  before  or  (hiring  harvest.  Most  writers  give  a  similar  meaning 
to  D'n"'  ^2  Kings  xix.  20,  E'TID),  the  etymology  of  which  is  very  doubtful. 
Hitzig  applies  it,  in  a  wider  sense,  to  spontaneous  products  generally,  such 
as  milk,  honey,  &c.  Acjuila  and  Theodotion  render  the  two  wonls  ajr6;iara 
and  aurof  u^.  Synimarhus  and  Jerome  make  the  second  mean  apples.  As 
to  the  general  meaning  of  the  verse,  there  are  two  opinions.  Kosenmiillor, 
Augusti,  and  Gcsenitis  understand  the  infinitive  T'OK  as  referring  to  the 
past.  The  sense  will  then  be  that  although  the  cnltivation  of  the  land  had 
been  interrupted  for  the  last  two  yonr«,  yet  now  in  this  third  year  they 
might  safely  resume  it.     To  this  interpretation  it  may  be  oljcctcd,  that  it 


Ver.  31.]  ISAIAH  XXXVII.  71 

arbitrarily  makes  the  year  mean  the  year  before  the  last,  and  no  less  arbi- 
trarily assumes  that  the  infinitive  is  here  used  for  preterite.  The  later  (lerman 
writers  seem  to  have  gone  back  to  the  old  and  obvious  interpretation,  which 
refers  the  whole  verse  to  the  future.  This  is  grammatically  more  exact, 
because  it  takes  tlie  year  in  a  sense  analogous  to  that  of  (hr  dit>j,  the  com- 
mon Hebrew  phrase  for  this  daij,  and  assimilates  the  infinitives  to  the  im- 
peratives which  follow.  Thus  understood,  the  verse  is  a  prediction  that 
for  two  years  the  people  should  subsist  upon  the  secondary  fruits  of  what 
was  sown  two  years  before,  but  that  in  the  third  year  they  should  till  the 
ground,  as  usual,  implying  that  Sennacherib's  invasion  should  bef  ire  that 
time  be  at  an  end.  But  why  should  this  event  be  represented  as  so  dis- 
tant, when  the  context  seems  to  speak  of  Sennacherib's  discomfiture  and 
flight  as  something  which  immediately  ensued?  Of  this  two  explanations 
have  been  given.  The  one  is,  that  the  year  in  which  these  words  were 
utttered  was  a  sabbatical  year,  and  the  next  the  year  of  Jubilee,  during 
neither  of  which  the  Jews  were  allowed  to  cultivate  the  ground,  so  that  the 
resumption  of  the  tillage  was  of  course  postponed  to  the  third.  It  is  no 
conclusive  objection  to  this  theory,  that  the  chronological  hypothesis  which 
it  involves  cannot  be  possibly  proved.  The  difficulty  in  all  such  cases 
arises  from  the  very  absence  of  positive  proof,  and  the  necessity  of  choosing 
between  difl'orent  possibilities.  A  more  serious  objection  is,  that  the  mode 
of  subsistence  for  the  two  first  years  seems  to  be  mentioneri,  not  as  a  mere 
preparation  for  what  follows,  but  as  a  substantive  prediction.  Even  this, 
however,  would  be  of  no  weight  in  opposition  to  an  hypothesis  which  accounts 
for  the  known  facts  and  explains  the  language  of  the  passage.  The  other 
solution  of  the  difficulty  is,  that  Sennacherib  was  now  on  his  way  to  Egj'pt, 
and  that  the  Prophet  expected  his  return  within  a  .year,  by  which  the  Jews 
would  be  again  deterred  from  making  the  usual  provision  for  their  own  sub- 
sistence, and  thus  the  crops  of  two  years  would  be  lost.  But  such  an  ex- 
pectation of  the  Prophet  would  have  been  falsified  by  the  Assyrian's  imme- 
diate retreat  to  his  own  country,  and  however  this  may  recommend  the 
suppositiou  to  those  who  refuse  to  admit  his  inspiration,  it  can  have  no 
weight  with  those  who  regard  him  as  a  Prophet.  The  proofs  of  his  divine 
legation  and  foreknowledge  are  so  many  and  various,  that  when  two  h\-po- 
theses  present  themselves,  the  one  which  clashes  with  his  inspiration  is  of 
course  to  be  rejected.  The  only  remaining  question  is,  wherein  the  sign 
consisted,  or  in  what  sense  the  word  sign  is  to  be  understood.  Some  take 
it  in  its  strongest  sense  of  miracle,  and  refer  it,  either  to  the  usual  divine 
interposition  for  the  subsistence  of  the  people  during  the  sabbatical  years, 
or  to  the  miraculous  provision  promised  in  this-  particular  case.  Others 
understand  it  here  as  simply  moaning  an  event  inseparable  from  another, 
either  as  an  antecedent  or  a  consequent,  so  that  the  promise  of  the  one  is 
really*  a  pledge  of  the  other.  Thus  the  promise  that  the  children  of  Israel 
would  worship  at  mount  Sinai  was  a  sign  to  Moses  that  they  should  first 
leave  Eg}-pt,  and  the  promised  birth  of  the  Messiah  was  a  sign  that  the 
Jewish  nation  should  continue  till  he  came.     (See  above,  vol.  i.  p.  170.) 

31.  And  the  escaped  (literally  the  escape)  of  the  house  of  Judah,  that  is 
left,  shall  again  take  root  dotourard  and  bear  fruit  upward.  This  verse 
foretells  by  a  familiar  figure,  the  returning  prosperity  of  Judah.  ^IP'  usually 
means  to  add,  and  is  taken  here  by  Hendewerk  in  the  sense  of  enlarging 
or  increasing.  Gesenius  seems  to  make  it  simply  equivalent  to  the  English 
take  or  strike  in  a  similar  connection.  Ewald  and  the  older  writers  under- 
stand it  as  implying  repetition,  an  idea  which  may  bo  expressed  in  trans- 


72  ISAIAU  XXXVII.  [Ver.  32-35. 

lation  by  again,  anew,  or  afresh.  For  the  peculiar  nse  of  the  abstract  noun 
nt3'7D,  Rcc  above,  chap.  iv.  2,  x.  20,  xv.  9. 

32.  For  out  of  Jerunahm  shall  go  forth  a  remnant,  and  an  encape  from  mount 
Zwn;  thf  zeal  of  Jehovah  of  hnxtK  shall  do  this.  For  the  nu-aning  of  the 
last  clause,  sec  the  commentary  on  chap.  ix.  8.  The  first  clause  is  an  ex- 
planation of  the  use  of  the  words  HOvD  and  rnNt'3  in  the  foregoing  verse. 
Grotius  (on  2  Kings,  xix.  81)  understands  the  going  forth  literally  of  the 
people  being  pent  up  in  Jerusalem,  but  now  set  at  large  by  the  retreat  of 
the  invaders,  and  again  quotes  from  Virgil,  Pauduntur  port<r  .  jurat  tie  et 
Ihrica  castra  desertosque  riderc  locos.  (See  above,  on  chap,  xxxiii.  17). 
But  it  is  much  more  natural  to  understand  it  figuratively  hke  the  preced- 
ing verse,  and  as  denoting  simply  that  some  in  Jerusalem  or  Zion  shall  bo 
saved. 

83.  Therefore  (because  Jehovah  has  determined  to  fulfil  these  promises), 
thu.<t  saith  Jehovah  {with  respect)  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  He  shall  not  come  to 
this  citt/,  and  shall  7iot  shoot  an  arrow  there,  and  shall  not  come  before  it  with 
a  shield  (or  a  shield  shall  not  come  before  if),  and  shall  not  cast  up  a  mound 
against  it.  Some  understand  this  as  meaning  simply  that  he  should  not 
take  the  city,  others  that  ho  should  not  even  attack  it.  130  has  its  ordi- 
nary sense  of  shield,  and  not  that  of  avma-iaao;  or  tcslwlo.  In  favour  of 
the  usual  construction  of  n:onp^  is  the  fact  that  all  the  other  verbs  have 

Jehovah  for  their  subject.  Some  translate  /X  into,  which  is  favoured 
neither  by  the  usage  of  the  particle  nor  by  the  context,  which  relates  to 

movements  of  the  enemv  without  the  walls.  Calvin  understands  by  n?7D 
the  bnlista,  or  ancient  engine  for  projecting  stones  and  other  missiles,  a 
gratuitous  expedient  to  evade  an  imaginary  difficulty,  as  to  the  use  of  the 
verb  IKi',  which  usually  means  to  jtmir,  but  may  also  be  applied  to  excava- 
tion and  the  heaping  up  of  earth.  This  verse  seems  to  shew  that  Jeru- 
salem was  not  actually  besieged  by  the  Ass^Tians,  or  at  least  not  by  the 
main  body  of  the  army  under  Sennacherib  himself,  unless  we  assume  that 
he  had  already  done  so  and  retreated,  and  regard  this  as  a  promise  that 
the  attempt  should  not  bo  repeated. 

.'31.  Hy  the  way  that  he  came  shall  he  return,  and  to  this  city  shall  he 
not  come,  saith  Jehovah.  The  first  clause  may  simply  mean  that  he  shall 
go  back  whence  he  came,  or  more  specifically,  that  he  shall  retreat  without 
turning  aside  to  attack  Jerusalem,  either  for  the  first  or  second  time.  The 
constniction  given  in  the  English  Bible  [hy  the  same  shall  he  return)  makes 
1^3  emphatic  and  connects  it  with  the  following  verb.  This  is  also  the 
Masoretic  interpunction  ;  but  arcording  to  analog}-  and  usage,  it  belongs  to 
what  precedes  and  must  bo  joined  with  ">w"K,  as  the  usual  Hebrew  expres- 
sion for  in  which. 

3.5.  And  I  will  cover  over  (or  protect^  this  city,  {so  as)  to  save  it,  for 
my  own  sakr,  and  for  the  sake  of  David  my  servant.  This  dot's  not  mean 
that  the  faith  or  piety  of  David,  as  an  individual,  should  be  rewarded  in 
his  descendants.  Imt  that  the  promise  made  to  him  respecting  his  succes- 
sors, and  especially  the  last  and  greatest  of  them,  should  be  faithfully  per- 
formed. (See  2  Sara.  vii.  12,  18).  It  is  equally  arbitrary,  therefore,  to 
make  David  here  the  name  of  tlio  Messiah,  and  to  infer,  as  Hitzig  does, 
from  this  mention  of  David,  that  vers.  82-85  are  by  a  later  writer. 
Knobel,  on  the  contrary,  notes  it  as  charact<^ristic  of  Isaiah,  and  refers  to 
chap.  ix.  0,  xi.  1,  10;  xxix.  1,  as  parallel  examples.  Umbreit  says  the 
genoincDcss  of  these  verses  can  bo  called  in  question  only  by  a  perfectly 


Ver.  30.]  ISAIAH  XXXVII.  73 

uncritical  scepticism  (Ziieifehucht).     The  terms  of  the  promise  in  the  first 
clause  may  be  compared  with  those  of  chap,  xxxiii.  5. 

36.  And  the  atiqcl  of  Jehorah  icent  forth,  rind  smote  in  the  camp  of  Aftxijria 
an  hundred  and  eighty  and  Jive  thousand,  and  they  [the  survivors  or  the  Jew.s) 
rose  early  in  the  morning,  and  behold  all  of  them  (that  were  smitten)  were 
dead  corpses.  Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  extenuate  this  miracle, 
by  reading  ^l^X  for  ^l?^,  (chiefs  instead  of  thousands),  or  by  supposing  that 
the  vast  number  mentioned  were  in  danger  of  death  from  the  plague  or 
otherwise.  Others,  unable  to  explain  it  away,  and  yet  unwilling  to  admit 
the  fact  recorded,  resort  to  the  cheap  and  trite  expedient  of  calling  it  a 
myth  or  a  traditional  exaggeration.  Such  assertions  admit  of  no  refuta- 
tion, because  there  is  nothing  to  refute.  Receiving,  as  these  very  authors 
do,  the  other  statements  of  the  context  as  historical,  they  have  no  right  to 
single  this  out  as  a  fabrication.  If  it  is  one,  then  the  rest  may  be  so  too, 
for  we  know  that  fictitious  writers  do  not  confine  themselves  to  prodigies 
and  wonders,  but  often  imitate  the  actual  occurrences  of  real  life.  In  the 
fact  itself,  there  is  nothing  incredible.  Those  who  reject  it  themselves 
refer  to  the  enormous  ravages  of  the  plague.  If  the  population  of  whole 
cities  may  be  buried  in  a  night  by  a  flow  of  lava,  or  in  an  instant  by  an 
earthquake,  what  is  there  to  shock  the  understanding  in  the  statement  of 
the  text,  especially  on  the  supposition,  favoured  by  these  same  interpreters, 
that  the  eniyel  of  Jehorah  is  a  Hebraism  for  the  plague,  or  some  other  phy- 
sical cause  or  means  of  destruction.  But  even  if  we  give  the  phrase  its 
usual  sense,  **  there  is,"  to  use  the  words  of  Barnes,  "  no  more  improba- 
bility in  the  existence  of  a  good  angel  than  there  is  in  the  existence  of  a 
good  man,  or  in  the  existence  of  an  evil  spirit  than  there  is  in  the  existence 
of  a  bad  man  ;  there  is  no  more  improbability  in  the  supposition  that  God 
employs  invisible  and  heavenly  messengers  to  accomplish  his  purposes  than 
there  is  that  he  employs  men."  There  is  consequently  no  need  of  depart- 
ing from  the  strict  sense  of  the  words,  or  of  disputing  whether  by  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  we  arc  to  understand  a  storm,  a  hot  wind,  or  a  pestilential 
fever.  As  little  necessity  or  reason  is  there  for  attempting  to  make  the 
verse  descriptive  of  a  gradual  or  protracted  mortalit}-,  so  that  every  morn- 
ing when  they  rose  there  was  nothing  to  be  seen  but  corpses.  The  terms 
used  can  naturally  signify  nothing  but  a  single  instantaneous  stroke  of 
divine  vengeance,  and  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xix.  35)  says  expressly 
that  the  angel  smote  this  number  in  that  night.  Sceptical  critics  would  be 
glad  to  have  it  in  their  power  to  plead  the  silence  of  profane  tradition  as 
an  objection  to  the  narrative  before  us.  But  although  such  an  inference 
would  be  wholly  inconclusive,  even  if  the  fact  were  so,  it  happens  in  this 
case  that  the  fact  is  not  so.  The  account  which  Herodotus  received  from 
the  Egj-ptian  priests,  as  to  Sennacherib's  retreat  fromPelusium,  occasioned 
by  an  irruption  of  field-mice,  which  Vulcan  sent  to  rescue  Sethos,  who  was 
priest  to  that  di\-inity  as  well  as  king  of  Egypt,  is  admitted  by  the  latest 
German  wTiters,  notwithstanding  the  denial  of  Gesenius,  to  be  an  evident 
variation  of  this  history,  not  more  corrupt  than  in  many  other  cases  where 
the  identity  of  origin  has  never  been  disputed.  The  transfer  of  the  scene 
of  the  event  to  Egypt,  and  the  substitution  of  Sethos  and  Vulcan  for  Heze- 
kiah  and  Jehovah,  are  in  strict  accordance  with  the  common  practice  of 
the  ancient  nations,  to  connect  the  most  remarkable  events,  liv  their  tra- 
ditions, with  their  own  early  history.  Even  the  figment  of  the  mice  may 
be  regarded  as  a  change  of  no  unusual  character  or  magnitude,  unless 
we   choose  to  assume,  with  J.    D.  Michaelis,  that  it  was  founded  on  a 


74  ISAJ.UI  XXX\  JI.  [Ver.  37,  88. 

misconception  of  the  mouse  as  the  hieroglypbical  emblem  of  destruc- 
tion. The  ancient  date  of  the  tradition  was  attested,  in  the  days  of 
Herodotus  himself,  by  a  statue  of  Sethos  in  the  temple  of  Vulcan, 
holding  a  mouse  in  his  hand,  with  the  inscription  e;  t/xs  n;  os/wv  euffE,3j5c 
laru.  The  parallel  narrative  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  21,  instead  of  number- 
ing the  slain,  says  that  all  the  mighty  men  of  valour,  and  the  leaders, 
and  the  captains  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrian  were  cut  otl".  Where  this 
terrific  ovirthrow  took  place,  whether  before  Jerusalem,  or  at  Libnah,  or 
at  some  intervening  point,  has  been  disputed,  and  can  never  be  deter- 
mined, in  the  absence  of  all  data,  monumental  or  historical.  Through- 
out the  sacred  narrative,  it  seems  to  be  intentionally  left  uncertain  whe- 
ther Jenisalem  was  besieged  at  all,  whether  Sennacherib  in  person  ever 
came  before  it,  whether  his  army  was  divided  or  united  when  the  stroke 
befell  them,  and  also  what  proportion  of  the  host  escaped.  It  is  enough 
to  know  that  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand  men  perished  in  a 
single  night. 

87.  Then  decamjjed,  and  departed,  and  relumed,  Sennacherib  king  of 
Assyria,  and  dwelt  {or  remained)  in  Nineveh.  The  form  of  expression  in 
the  first  clause  is  thought  by  some  writers  to  resemble  Cicero's  famous  de- 
scription of  Catiline's  escape  {ahiit,  ercessit,  evasit,  crupil),  the  rapid 
succession  of  the  verbs  suggesting  the  idea  of  confused  and  sudden  fliglit. 
His  dwelling  in  Nineveh  is  supposed  by  some  interpreters  to  bo  mentioned 
as  implying  that  he  went  forth  no  more  to  war,  at  least  not  against  the 
Jews.  An  old  tradition  says  that  he  lived  only  fifty  days  after  his  return  ; 
but  according  to  other  chronological  hypothesis,  he  reigned  eighteen  years 
longer,  and  during  that  interval  waged  war  successfully  against  the  Greeks, 
and  founded  Tarsus  in  Cilicia. 

88.  And  he  was  woishi/ipinii  {in)  the  house  of  .\j«;"0./t  his  ijod,  and 
Adrammelfch  and  Shnrrzer  his  sons  smote  him  with  the  sword,  and  theij 
escaped  (literally,  sartd  themselves)  into  the  land  of  Ararat,  and  Ksurhaddon 
hi'i  Son  reii/ned  in  his  stead.  The  Jews  have  a  tradition  that  Sennacherib 
intended  to  sacrifice  his  sons,  and  that  they  slew  him  in  self  defence. 
Another  tradition  is,  that  he  had  ficd  into  the  temple  of  his  god  as  an 
asylum.  A  simpler  supposition  is,  that  the  time  of  his  devotions  was  chosen 
by  his  murderers,  as  one  when  he  would  be  least  guarded  or  suspicious. 
Hendewerk  cites,  as  parallel  instances  of  monarchs  murdered  while  at 
prayer,  the  cases  of  the  Caliph  Omar,  and  the  emperor  Leo  V.  For  tl.e 
various  derivations  of  the  name  Xisroch  which  have  been  proposed,  see 
Gesenius's  Thesaunis,  torn.  ii.  p.  892.  The  name  Adrammelech  occurs  in 
2  Kings  xvii.  81,  as  that  of  a  Mesopotamian  or  Assyrian  idol.  Berosus  has 
Ardnmnsaniis,  and  Abydenus  Ailnnnelus,  which  are  obvious  conniptions  of 
the  Hebrew  or  Aramean  name.  In  Hke  manner  F.saihaddon  is  called 
Asordanius  by  iJerosus,  und  A.rerdis  by  Ab^'denus,  who  moreover  has 
Xerffilus  instead  of  Sharezer,  a  discrepancy  w  hich  seems  to  be  explained  by 
the  combination  Xer/fid-shareier  (Jer.  xxxix.  8,  18).  Supposing  this  to 
have  been  the  full  name  of  Sennacherib's  son,  one  half  would  seem  to  have 
been  preserved  by  Abydenus,  and  the  ttther  by  Isuiah.  Ararat,  both  here 
and  in  Gen.  viii.  4,  is  the  name  of  a  region,  corresponding  more  or  less 
exactly  to  Armenia,  or  to  that  part  of  it  in  which  the  ark  rested.  The 
Armenians  still  call  their  country  by  this  nanio.  From  the  expression 
mountains  of  Ararat  (Gen.  viii.  4),  has  sprung  the  modern  practice  of  apply- 
ing this  name  to  the  particular  eminence  where  Noah  hmded.  The  country 
of  Ararat   is   described    bv   Smith    and  D wight,    in   their   Researches   in 


Vek.  1.]  ISAIAH  XXXVIII.  75 

Armenia,  vol.  ii.  p.  73,  Ac.     The  original  name  is  retained  in  the  Vulgate, 
while  the  Septuagint  renders  it  'Aofiivla. 


CHAPTER  XXXYIII. 

This  chapter  contains  an  account  of  Hezekiah's  illness  and  miraculous 
recovery,  together  with  a  Psalm  which  he  composed  in  commemoration  of  his 
sutl'erings  and  deliverance.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xx.  1-11)  varies 
more  from  that  hefore  us  than  in  the  preceding  chapter.  So  far  as  they 
are  parallel,  the  narrative  in  Kings  is  more  minute  aud  circumstantial,  and 
at  the  same  time  more  exactly  chronological  in  its  arrangement.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Psalm  is  wholly  wanting  in  that  passage.  All  these  cir- 
cumstances favour  the  conclusion  that  the  text  before  us  is  the  first  draught, 
and  the  other  a  repetition  by  the  hand  of  the  same  writer. 

1.  In  tliose  days  Ilezekiith  ivas  sick  unto  death,  and  Isaiah  the  xon  of 
Anioz,  the  Prophet,  came  to  him,  and  mid  to  him,  Thus  saith  Jehovah, 
Order  thij  house,  for  thou  {art)  dying,  and  art  not  to  live.  As  Hozekiixh 
survived  this  sickness  fifteen  yeai's  (ver.  5),  and  reigned  iu  all  twenty-uiue 
(2  Kings  xviii.  2),  those  days  must  be  restricted  to  the  fourteenth  year, 
which  was  that  of  the  Assyrian  invasion.  "Whether  this  sickness  was  before 
the  great  catastrophe,  as  Usher,  Lightfoot,  and  Prideaux  suppose,  or  after 
it,  as  Calvin,  Yitringa,  and  Geseuius  think,  is  not  a  question  of  much 
exegetical  importance.  The  first  opinion  is  sustained  by  the  authority  of 
the  Seller  01am,  the  last  by  that  of  Josephus.  In  favour  of  the  first  is 
the  promise  in  ver.  G,  according  to  its  simplest  aud  most  obvious  meaning, 
though  it  certainly  admits  of  a  wider  application.  It  is  also  favoured  by 
the  absence  of  allusions  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  host  in  the  song 
of  Hezckiah.  But  on  the  other  hand,  his  prayer  is  only  for  recovery  from 
sickness,  without  any  reference  to  siege  or  invasion.  Yitringa  objects  to  this 
hypothesis,  that  the  king  of  Babylon,  who  was  tributary  to  Assyria,  would 
not  have  dared  to  send  a  message  of  congratulation  to  Hezckiah  before  the 
destruction  of  the  host.  But  even  gi'antiug  this,  which  might  be  questioned, 
and  admitting  the  assumed  fact  as  to  the  dependence  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
why  may  we  not  suppose  that  the  catastroj^he  occurred  in  the  interval 
between  Hezekiah's  sickness  and  the  embassy  from  Merodach-bahidan  ? 
Calvin  objects  to  the  hypothesis  which  makes  the  sickness  previous  in  dale 
to  the  destruction  of  the  host,  that  it  would  not  have  been  omitted  in  its 
proper  place.  It  is  altogether  natural,  however,  that  the  Prophet,  after 
carrying  the  history  of  Sennacherib  to  its  conclusion,  should  go  back  to 
complete  that  of  Hezckiah  also.  n-IO?  strictly  means  to  die,  i.  c.  so  as  to  bo 
ready  to  die,  or  at  the  point  of  death.  An  analogous  Greek  phrase  {acO'-vsia 
c-^h;  ^dvarov)  is  used  in  John  xi.  4,  to  denote  a  sickness  actually  fatal. 
Here  it  expresses  merely  tendency  or  danger,  the  natural  and  necessary 
course  of  things  without  a  special  intervention.  Order  thy  house  is  ambigu- 
ous, both  in  Hebrew  and  in  English.  The  ?  may  express  relation  iu 
general,  or  indicate  the  object  of  address.  Iu  the  former  case  the  sense 
will  be,  give  orders  with  respect  to  thy  house.  (LXX.  ru^ai  -^ifl  roD  c'ixou 
aou).  Iu  the  latter,  order  or  commaud  thy  household,  i.e.  make  known  to 
them  thy  last  will.  Grotius  quotes  from  Plutarch  the  analogous  expression. 
evre/.XifiOai  to?;  o/V.e/o/;.  In  either  case,  the  genei'al  idea  is  that  of  a  final 
settling  of  his  afi'uirs,  in 'the  prospect  of  death.  (Compare  2  Sam.  xvii.  23). 
There  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  r\'Q  as  an  active  par- 


7G  ISAIAH  XXXV III.  [Veb.  2-4. 

ticiple.  The  modem  writers  infer  from  the  treatment  discrilied  in  ver.  21, 
and  said  to  be  still  pnu-tised  in  the  East,  that  Hczekiah  had  the  plague, 
which  would  make  it  less  improbable  tliat  this  was  the  instrument  employed 
in  the  destruction  of  Smiuu-lierib's  army.  Of  those  who  make  the  sickness 
subsequent  to  this  j^reat  deliverance,  some  suppose  the  former  to  have  been 
intended,  like  the  thorn  in  Paul's  flesh,  to  preserve  He/.ekiah  from  being 
e.niltrd  above  measure.  That  he  was  not  wholly  free  from  the  necessity  of 
such  a  check,  may  be  inferred  from  his  subsequent  conduct  to  the  Baby- 
loniiin  envoys. 

2.  And  Hezckiah  turtvd  h  in  face  to  the  ualt,  and  pro  if  rd  to  Jehovah. 
Jerome  understands  by  the  uall  that  of  his  heart,  Vatablus  the  side  of  his 
bed,  Jonathan  the  wall  of  the  temple,  towards  which  Daniel  prayed 
(Dan.  vi.  11).  But  this  last  was  a  practice  which  arose  during  the  exile, 
and  even  the  promise  in  1  Kings  viii.  25  has  reference  to  that  condition. 
The  obvious  meaning  is  the  wall  of  the  room,  towards  which  lie  turned,  not 
merely  to  collect  his  thoughts,  or  to  conceal  bis  tears,  but  as  a  natural 
expression  of  strong  feeling.  As  Ahab  turned  his  face  toward  the  wall  in 
angi-r  (1  Kings  xx.  2\  so  Hezekiah  does  the  same  in  grief.  There  is  no 
need  of  supposing  with  Lowth,  that  the  bed  was  in  the  corner  of  the  room, 
so  that  he  could  not  turn  either  way  without  looking  towards  the  wall. 
Calvin  regards  the  conduct  of  Hezekiah  in  this,  and  all  other  parts  of  the 
narrative,  as  an  eminent  example  of  pious  resignation.  Vitringa  seems  to 
admit  that  the  etlect  here  described  was  connected  in  some  degree  with 
Hezekiah's  undue  attachment  to  the  things  of  this  life.  Grotius  ascribes  it 
to  the  indistinct  views  then  enjoyed  of  a  future  state.  Josephus  thinks  he 
was  the  more  distressed  because  he  had  as  yet  no  heir,  since  Manassch  was 
not  born  till  three  years  afterwards  (2  Kings  xxi.  1). 

.'i.  And  he  said,  Ah  Jehovah,  remember,  I  hexreeh  th'e,  hotc  I  have  walked 
be/ore  thee  in  truth  and  with  a  whole  heart,  and  that  which  is  good  in  thine 
eyes  I  have  done;  and  Hezekiah  u-ept  a  (jreat  weeping.  Tlie  figure  of  walking 
hefore  God  includes  the  ideas  of  communion  with  liim  ami  subjection  to  him, 
and  is  therefore  more  comprehensive  than  the  kindred  phrase  of  walking 
with  him.  liy  truth  we  are  here  to  understand  sincerity  and  constancy. 
The  explanation  of  chll'  by  Gesenius  as  meaning  devoted  (Hke  the  Arabic 
A.v>^  Moslim)  is  justified  neither  by  Hebrew  etymology  nor  usage,  which 

require  it  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  whole  or  ■perfect,  as  opposed  to  any 
essential  defect.  The  reference  of  this  and  the  following  phrase  to  freedom 
from  idolatry  and  zeal  for  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  is  too  limited.  This 
verse  is  not  an  angry  expostulation,  nor  an  ostentatious  self-praise,  but  an 
appeal  to  the  only  satisfactory  evidence  of  his  sincerity.  Calvin  sni)p()se8 
Hezekiah  to  be  here  resisting  a  temptation  to  despondency  arising  from  the 
sudden  intimation  of  approaching  death.  n3X  is  a  strung  expression  of 
entreaty.  It  is  more  regularly  written  elsewhere  N3X.  Hitzig  supposes  it 
to  be  a  contraction  of  NJ"7N  (Gen.  xix.  7) ;  but  as  it  is  also  ustil  where 
there  is  no  negation,  it  is  better  to  derive  it  with  Gesenius  from  ''I!*  and  N3. 
4.  And  the  unvil  nf  Jehovuh  was  (or  came^  to  Isaiah,  suging  (wliat  follows 
in  tlio  next  verse).  Calvin  supposes  a  considerable  time  to  have  elapsed 
before  this  second  message  was  sent  ;  but  he  swems  to  have  overlooked  the 
more  particular  statement  in  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xx.  4),  that  the 
word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him  he/ore  he  had  gone  out  ol'  the  middle  court 
(according  to  the  keri),  or  the  middle  city  (according  to  the  kethib).  The 
former  reading  is  found  in  the  ancient  versions,  but  the  latter  as  usual  is 


Yer.  5-7.]  ISAIAH  XXXVIII.  77 

supposed  to  be  more  aucient  by  the  Iat(!st  critics.  The  middle  cilij  mny 
either  mean  the  middle  of  the  city  {media  urbs),  or  a  particular  part  of 
Jerusalem  so  called,  perhaps  that  in  which  the  temple  stood,  or  more 
generally  that  whic h  lay  between  the  upper  city  on  mount  Ziou  and  the 
lower  city  on  mount  Akra.  The  communication  may  have  been  through 
tbe  middle  i/ale  mentioned  by  Jeremiah  (xxxix.  3).  In  cither  case,  the  in- 
terval could  not  have  been  a  long  one,  though  sutKcient  to  try  the  faith  of 
Hezekiah.  The  omission  of  these  words  in  the  text  before  us  is  ascribed 
by  Kuobel  to  ignorance  of  the  localities  on  the  part  of  a  writer,  living  after 
the  exile.  It  might  have  been  supposed  that  even  such  a  writer,  living  on 
the  spot  and  with  the  older  Scriptures  in  his  hands,  would  have  enjoyed  as 
good  opportunities  of  understanding  such  a  jjoint  as  Knobel  h'mself. 

.').  Go  and  say  to  Ilczclciak,  Thm  naith  Jehovah,  the  God  of  David  thy 
fathff,  I  have  heard  thy  prayer,  I  have  seen  thy  tears  (or  iceepiny) ;  behold, 
1  am  adding  (or  about  to  add)  unto  thy  days  fifteen  years.  Tho  ])arallel 
passage  (2  Kings  xx.  5)  has:  return  and  say  to  Ilezefiah,  the  chief  (or 
leader)  of  my  people,  Tlius  saitli  Jehovah,  &c.  After  tears  li  adds:  behold, 
(/  am)  healing  (or  about  to  heal)  thee;  on  the  third  day  thou  shall  go  up  to 
the  house  of  Jehovah.  David  is  particularly  mentioned  as  the  person  to 
whom  the  promise  of  perpetual  succession  had  been  given  (2  Sam.  vii.  12). 
The  construction  of  'IPV  'J^n  is  the  same  as  in  chap.  xxix.  14.  Gesenius 
and  the  rest  of  that  school  set  this  down  of  course  as  undoubtedly  a  pro- 
phecy ex  evcntu,  because  (says  Knobel  with  great  naivete)  Isaiah  could  not 
know  how  long  Hezekiah  was  to  live.  Hendewerk  adds  that  Jehovah  is 
here  represented  as  changing  his  mind,  and  directly  contradicting  himself. 
To  this  no  further  answer  is  necessary  than  what  Calvin  had  said  long  be- 
fore, to  wit,  that  the  threatening  in  ver.  1  was  conditional,  and  that  the 
second  message  was  designed  from  the  beginning  no  less  than  the  fii'st. 
The  design  of  the  whole  proceeding  is  well  explained  by  Yitringa  to  have 
been  to  let  Hezekiah  feel  his  obligation  to  a  special  divine  interposition  for 
a  recoveiy  which  might  otherwise  have  seemed  the  unavoidable  eliect  of 
ordinary  causes. 

0.  Jnd  Old  of  the  hand  of  the  Icing  of  Assyria  I  iritl  save  thee  and  this 
city,  and  I  uill  cover  over  (or  protect)  this  city.  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and 
liBobel,  Avith  some  of  the  older  writers,  infer  from  this  verse  that  the  army 
of  Sennacherib  was  still  in  Judah.  Gesenius  and  liosenmiiller  follow  Calvin 
and  Yitringa  in  referring  it  to  subsequent  attacks  or  apprehensions.  This 
is  really  more  natural,  because  it  accounts  for  the  addition  of  this  promise 
to  that  of  a  prolonged  life.  The  connection,  as  explained  by  Calvin,  is, 
that  he  should  not  only  live  fifteen  years  longer,  but  should  be  free  fi'om 
the  Assyrians  during  that  time.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xx.  G)  adds, 
for  my  ouii  sake  and  for  the  sake  (f  David  my  servant,  as  in  chap,  xxxvii. 
35.  Had  this  addition  been  made  in  the  text  before  us,  it  would  of  course 
have  been  aninstance  of  repetition  and  assimilation  symptomatic  of  a  later 
writer. 

7.  And  this  {shall  be)  to  thee  the  sign  from  Jehovah,  that  Jehovah  uill 
perform  ihi^i  word  which  he  hath  spoken.  The  English  Yersion  has  a  sign; 
but  the  article  is  emphatic,  the  {appointed)  sign  [proceeding)  from  Jehovah 
(not  merely  from  the  Prophet).  The  translation  this  thing,  although  justi- 
fied by  usage,  is  here  inadmissible  because  unnecessary.  The  parallel 
narr.itive  in  Kings  is  much  more  circumstantial.  What  occurs  below,  as 
the  last  two  verses  of  this  chapter,  there  stands  in  its  regular  chronological 
order,  between  the  promise  of  recovery  and  the  annouiiccment  of  the  sign, 


78  ISAIAH  XXXVIIL  [Veb.  8. 

BO  that  the  latter  appears  to  have  been  given  in  compliance  with  Uczekiah's 
own  request  and  choice.  "  And  Isaiah  said,  This  (shall  be)  to  thee  the 
sign  from  Jehovah,  that  Jehovah  will  perform  the  thing  which  he  hath 
spoken  ;  shall  the  shadow  advance  ten  degrees,  or  shall  it  recede  ten  de- 
grees ?  And  He/t'kiah  said,  It  is  a  light  thing  for  the  shadow  to  dtcline 
ten  degrees :  nay,  Init  let  the  shadow  return  backward  ten  degrees  "  (2  Kings 
XX.  y,  10).     As  to  the  transposition  of  vers.  21,  22,  see  below. 

8.  Behold,  I  [am)  camiug  the  shadow  to  go  baric,  the  detfrees  irhieh  it  htu 
gone  down  (or  u/iich  hare  gone  doun)  on  the  degrees  of  Ahaz  uifh  the  itun, 
ten  degreen  haelicird;  and  the  nun  returned  ten  degreex  on  the  degnes  irhtch 
it  had  gone  down.  As  to  tin.'  nature  of  the  ])hcnoni('n()n  Imtp  doscribod, 
there  are  three  opinions.  The  first  is,  that  the  Prophet  took  advantage 
of  a  transient  obscuration,  or  of  some  unusual  refraction,  to  coutirm  the 
king's  belief  of  what  he  promised.  The  second  is.  that  the  whole  is  a 
myth  or  legend  of  a  later  date.  The  third  is,  that  Isaiah  did  actually 
exhibit  a  supernatural  attestation  of  the  truth  of  his  prediction.  This  is 
sapposed  by  some  to  have  consisted  merely  in  the  foresight  of  a  natural 
phenomenon,  while  others  regard  the  phenomenon  itself  as  miraculous. 
Of  these  last,  some  again  suppose  a  mere  miraculous  appearance,  others 
an  actual  disturbance  of  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  This  last  is  not  a 
question  of  much  exegetical  or  practical  importance,  since  it  neither  can 
nor  need  be  ascertained  whether  the  course  of  the  sun  (or  of  the  earth 
around  it)  was  miraculously  changed,  or  the  shadow  miraculously  rendered 
independent  of  the  sun  which  caused  it.  The  former  hA'potbesis  is  favoured 
by  the  statement  that  the  sun  vent  back,  if  taken  in  its  sti'ictest  and  most 
obvious  sense,  although  it  may  be  understood  as  a  metonymy  of  the  cause 
for  the  efiect.  At  any  rate,  little  would  a])pear  to  be  gained  by  paring  down 
a  miracle  to  certain  dimensions,  when,  even  on  the  lowest  supposition,  it 
can  onl}-  be  ascribed  to  the  almighty  power  of  God,  with  whom  all  things 
are  not  only  possible,  but  equally  easy.  The  choice  is  not  between  a 
greater  and  lesser  miracle,  but  between  a  miracle,  a  nivth,  and  a  trick. 
The  last  two  suppositions  are  so  perfectly  gratuitous,  as  well  as  imjiious, 
that  no  believer  in  the  possibility  of  either  miracle  or  inspiration  can  enter- 
tain them  for  a  moment.  And  if  thus  shut  up  to  the  assumption  of  a 
miracle,  it  matters  little  whether  it  be  great  or  small.  It  is  enough  that 
God  alone  could  do  it  or  infallibly  predict  it.  As  to  the  disproportion  of 
the  miracle  to  the  occasion,  it  remains  substantially  the  same  on  any  sup- 
position whiih  involves  a  real  miracle  at  all.  If  this  be  admitted,  and  the 
historical  truth  of  the  narrative  assumed,  the  safest  course  is  to  expound  it 
in  its  simplest  and  most  obvious  sense.  Another  question  in  relation  to 
this  verse,  of  far  less  moment  in  itself,  has  given  rise  to  a  vast  amount  of 
learned  and  ingenious  controversy.  This  is  the  question,  whether  the  de- 
grees hero  mentionrd  were  the  graduated  scale  of  a  dial  or  the  steps  of  a 
staircase.  In  this  dispute,  besides  the  exegetical  writtTs  on  Isaiah  and  the 
second  book  of  Kings,  wo  meet  with  the  great  names  of  Usher,  Petavius, 
Salmasius,  Scaliger,  and  others  of  eminent  repute  but  later  date.  It  is 
inii)ortant  to  observe  that  there  is  no  word  in  the  text  ntces.sarily  denoting 
such  an  instrument.  By  comparing  the  text  and  nuirgin  of  the  common 
English  Version,  it  would  seem  that  the  translators  were  disposed  to  put 
this  sense  upon  the  words  l"?^w'3  tnN  DOyO,  which  they  render,  ihe  sun-dial 
of  Ahaz,  but  which  literally  mean,  the  degrees  t)f  Ahaz  in  (or  //»/)  the  sun. 
So,  too,  tlie  Targum  has /ioMr-«/o>if  (t<*VC'  pN),  and  the  Vulgate  horohgium. 
The  only  word  corresponding  to  all  this  in  the  original  is  ril^yo^  which,  like 


Ver.  9.]  ISAIAH  XXX I'JII.  79 

the  Liitiu  tjradiia,  first  means  ,•?/('/;.■>•,  aud  thou  (hyrecs.  The  uearest  a]i|)roach 
to  the  description  of  a  dial  is  in  tlie  words  decrees  of  Aliaz.  This  circum- 
stance may  shew  that  the  reference  to  a  dial,  properly  so  called,  is  not  so 
obvious  or  uccess.iry  in  the  Hebrew  text  as  in  the  English  Version.  It  was 
further  alleged  by  Scaliger,  and  other  early  writers  on  the  subject,  that  the 
use  of  dials  was  unknown  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah.  Later  investigations 
have  destroyed  the  force  of  this  objection,  and  made  it  probable  that  solar 
chronometers  of  some  sort  were  in  use  among  the  Babylonians  at  a  very  early 
period,  and  that  Aha/  may  have  borrowed  the  invention  from  them,  as  ho 
borrowed  other  things  from  the  Assyrians  (2  Kings  xvi.  10).  There  is 
therefore  no  historical  necessity  for  assuming,  with  Scaliger,  that  the  shadow 
here  meant  was  the  shadow  cast  upon  the  steps  of  tlie  palace,  called  the 
slatrs  of  Ahaz,  because  he  had  built  them  or  the  house  itself.  The  only 
question  is,  whether  this  is  not  the  simplest  and  most  obvious  explanation  of 
the  words,  and  one  which  entirely  exhausts  their  meaning.  If  so,  we  may 
easily  suppose  the  shadow  to  have  been  visible  from  Hezekiah's  chamber, 
and  the  olfered  sign  to  have  been  suggested  to  the  Prophet  by  the  sight  of 
it.  This  hypothesis  relieves  us  from  the  necessity  of  accounting  for  the 
division  into  ten  or  rather  twenty  degi-ees,  as  Hezekiah  was  allowed  to 
choose  between  a  precession  and  a  retrocession  of  the  same  extent  (2  Kings 
XX.  9).  These  two  opinicms  are  by  no  means  so  irreconcilable  as  they 
may  at  first  sight  seem.  Even  supposing  (he  degrees  of  Ahaz  to  have 
been  an  instrument  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  measuring  time,  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  must  have  been  a  dial  of  modern  or  of  any  very  artificial 
structure.  A  Jewish  writer,  quoted  by  Grotius,  describes  it  as  a  globe 
within  a  concave  hemisphere,  casting  its  shadow  on  the  concave  surface. 
But  besides  the  arbitrary  character  of  this  supposition,  it  does  not  account 
for  the  description  of  the  shadow  as  descending  with  the  sun,  since  the 
shadow  on  such  an  instrument  would  ascend  as  the  sun  descended.  Knobcl 
imagines  that  there  may  have  been  an  artificial  eminence  or  mound,  with 
steps  or  terraces  surrounding  it,  on  which  the  shadow  cast  by  an  obelisk 
or  gnomon  at  the  summit  would  grow  longer  as  the  day  declined,  or,  in  other 
words,  descend  with  the  descending  sim.  But  a  still  more  simple  supposi- 
tion is,  that  the  gnomon  was  erected  on  a  staircase  of  suitable  exposure, 
or  that  a  coluum  at  the  top  cast  a  shadow  which  was  found  available  for  a 
rude  measurement  of  time.  The  minor  questions,  whether  the  gnomon  was 
designed  to  be  such,  or  was  erected  for  some  other  purpose,  aud  whether 
ril*?!/©  means  ordinary  steps  or  astronomical  degrees,  do  not  afi'ect  the  essen- 
tial fact,  that  the  recession  of  the  shadow  was  perceptible  in  such  a  situation 
and  on  such  a  scale  as  to  be  altogether  incontestable.  nvVDn  may  either 
be  connected  with  what  goes  before  {the  shadoiv  of  the  degrees),  or  construed 
as  an  accusative  of  measure  (the  degrees  uhich  it  has  gone  down). 

9.  A  writing  of  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  when  he  wax  sick,  and  hied 
{i.e.  recovered)  /"rowi  his  sickness.  This  is  the  title  or  iuseription  of  tho 
following  Psalm  (vers.  10-20),  not  inserted  by  a  copj-ist  or  compiler,  but 
prefixed,  according  to  the  ancient  oriental  usage,  by  the  author  himself,  and 
therefore  forming  an  integral  part  of  the  text.  The  title  2'??'?,  prefixed  to 
Several  of  the  Psalms,  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  as  an  orthographical  variation 
of  the  word  (2??P)  here  used.  Others  derive  the  former  from  a  difierent 
root,  but  suppose  its  form  to  be  copied  from  the  one  before  us.  (See  Heng- 
stenberg  on  Psalm  xri.  1.)  The  specific  senses  put  upou  this  word  by  the 
Septuagint  {prager),  the  Targum  {confession),  and  Gesenius  {song),  are 
inferred  from  the  contents  of  the  passage  itself,  and  do  not  belong  to  the 


80  ISAIAU  XXXVlll.  [Vkb.  10. 

Hebrew  word,  which  simply  means  a  inidnij.  The  particle  prefixed  is  strictly 
equivalent  neither  to  h]i  nor  of,  hut  means  Monrjing  to,  as  in  the  frequent 
formulas  "in-*  and  nV30?  in  the  titles  of  the  Psalms,  heloiighifi  to  David  (as 
the  author),  hclovgiwi  to  the  cltiff  iinisicinii  (as  the  performer).  The  con- 
jecture of  Grotius,  that  Isaiah  dictated  the  psalm,  or  put  it  iuto  Hezekiah's 
mouth,  is  perfectly  {gratuitous.  That  He/.ekiah  should  compose  a  psalm,  is 
not  more  strange  than  that  he  should  make  a  collection  of  Provt-rhs  (Prov. 
XXV.  1).  It  would  h  ive  been  far  more  strange  if  one  so  much  like  Duvid 
in  character  and  spirit  had  not  followed  his  example  in  the  practice  of 
devotional  composition.  The  inspiration  and  canonical  authority  of  this 
production  are  clear  from  its  h.iviug  been  incorporated  by  Isaiah  in  his 
prophecies,  although  omitted  in  the  second  book  of  Kings.  The  questions 
rai.sed  by  some  inteqireters,  as  to  its  antiquity  and  genuineness,  are  founded 
on  the  mere  possibility,  that  the  passage  may  be  of  later  date  and  by  another 
writer.  So  far  as  we  have  evidence,  either  ext<.'rnal  or  internid,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  ground  for  critical  misgiving.  The  3  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  clause  does  not  mean  amceiiung  his  sickness,  indicating  the  subject 
of  the  composition,  but.  as  usual  before  an  infinitive,  denotes  the  time  of  the 
action.  This  is  by  most  writers  understood  to  l»e,  o/trr  he  had  been  sick 
and  had  recovered,  as  explained  in  the  Vulgate  (ciun  a>grotasset  et  cnnva- 
luisset).  The  words,  in  themselves  considered,  would  more  naUirally  .seem 
to  mean,  during  his  siclcness  and  recovery,  and  are  accordingly  explained  by 
Hit/.ig.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Psalm  itself  at  all  inconsistent  with  the 
supposition,  that  it  was  conceived  and  perhaps  composed,  if  not  reduced  to 
writing,  before  the  complete  fulfilm.ntof  the  promise  in  the  king's  recovery. 
The  contrary  hypothesis  has  tended  to  embarrass  and  peqilex  the  inteq">re- 
tation,  as  will  be  more  distinctly  seen  below.  The  idiomatic  phrase  to  live 
fri'tn  sickness,  in  the  sense  of  convalescence  or  recovery,  occurs  repeatedly 
elsewhere,  either  fully  or  in  an  abbreviated  form.  (See  for  example  1  Kings 
i.  2  ;  Gen.  xx.  7.) 

10.  I  said  in  the  pause  of  my  days  I  shall  go  info  the  gates  of  the  grave, 
J  am  deprived  of  the  rest  of  my  years.  The  jironoun  of  the  first  person 
does  not  seem  to  be  emphatic  or  distinctive,  as  it  usually  is  when  separately 
written,  but  appears  to  be  expressed  for  the  sake  of  a  euphonic  or  rhythmi- 
cal effect.  The  words  'D'  ^013  may  naturally  qualify  either  the  foregoing 
or  the  following  verb,  I  said  in  the  pause  of  my  days,  or,  in  the  j>ansco/my 
days  I  shall  go  ;  but  the  latter  construction  is  favoured  by  the  accents,  and 
by  the  analog}'  of  the  following  verse,  where  TnON  is  immediately  suc- 
ceeded by  the  words  which  he  uttered.  Tlie  explanation  of  *D'  *DT,  as 
meaning  the  hlood  of  my  days,  is  unnatural  in  itself,  and  recpiires  an  arbit- 
rary change  of  pointing.  Kimchi  gives  'DT  the  sense  of  rH////i7  o//  ^njT"0), 
derived  from  ^D^3.  (See  above,  the  note  on  chap.  vi.  5.)  Most  interprett^rs 
regard  it  as  synonymous  with  'P^.  silence,  stillness,  though  they  dilUr  as  to 
the  application  of  the  figures.  Schniidius  sujjposes  it  to  mean  the  standing 
still  of  the  sun,  or  its  apparent  pause  at  noonday,  and  then  noon  itsflt',  or 
what  the  Greeks  call  r;  /Aiffr;/x/3j/'a  roD  /3<(-u.  and  ourselves,  the  meridian  of 
life.  This  may  also  be  the  meaning  of  the  Septuagint  version  (i»  rf/  v^u 
T&/>  TifLiPutv  fiov),  in  the  height  (or  zenith)  of  my  days,  although  CUricus  and 
others  confidentially  alkgi'  that  the  Seventy  for  'D1  read  '01,  of  which  there 
is  no  example  elsewhere.  I'mbrcit  understands  by  the  stillness  of  his  dnys 
the  period  of  life  when  the  passions  cease  to  govern  and  the  cliaracter 
becomes  more  calm.  Gesenius  applies  it  to  the  reign  of  Ile/ekiah,  and 
supposes  him  to  mean  that  he  was  about  to  be  cut  ofl"  when  he  had  every 


Ver.  11.]  ISAIAH  XXXVIJI.  81 

prospect  of  a  peaceful  reif,Ti.  Even  Kiuicbi's  sense  of  culling  ojfis  recon- 
cilable with  this  explanation  of  *0T  as  meaninpf  silence,  then  cessation. 
The  general  idea  is  correctly  given  in  the  Vulgate  (dimidio),  which  Gese- 
nius  gratuitously  thinks  may  be  a  mere  conjecture  from  the  Latin  demi, 
but  which  is  much  more  likely  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  analogous 
expression  in  Ps.  cii.  25,  /  snid,  0  my  God,  tdhe  me  nol  auny  in  the  tnidst 
of  my  days  (^D^  *Vn3).  There  is  not  the  slightest  ground,  however,  for 
supposing  this  last  to  be  the  true  text  here.  The  preposition  before  yates 
may  mean  either  to,  through,  or  into  ;  but  the  last  is  its  usual  sense  after 
verbs  of  motion.  As  parallel  expressions,  may  be  mentioned  the  gates  of 
death  (Ps.  ix.  14),  and  the  gales  of  hell  (Mat.  xvi.  18).  The  verb  npS 
means  to  visit,  and  especially  to  visit  for  the  purpose  cither  of  inspection  or 
piininhmcnt.  From  the  former  of  these  applications  springs  the  secondary 
sense  of  missing  or  finding  wanting.  This  is  adopted  here  by  Geseuius,  so 
as  to  make  the  last  clause  mean,  I  shall  he  missed  (by  my  acquaintances  and 
friends)  during  the  rest  of  my  years.  But  nature  and  the  context  shew 
that  Hezekiah's  thoughts  were  running  upon  what  he  was  to  miss  himself. 
Besides,  the  future  meaning  given  to  the  preterite  is,  in  this  case,  gratuitous, 
and  therefore  ungrammatical.  A  much  better  use  of  the  same  general  sense 
is  made  by  those  who  take  the  Pual  as  a  causative  passive,  /  am  viade  to 
miss  or  lose  the  rest  of  my  years,  or,  as  the  English  Version  has  it,  1  am 
deprived  of  them.  It  is  better  still,  however,  because  more  in  accordance 
with  the  tone  and  spirit  of  the  whole  composition,  to  understand  the  verb 
as  expressing  not  mere  loss  or  privation,  but  penal  infliction.  It  was 
because  Hezekiah  regarded  the  threatened  abbreviation  of  his  life  as  a 
token  of  God's  wrath,  that  he  so  importunately  deprecated  it.  Instead  of 
the  rem(nnder,  Cube  and  Dathe  read  the  licst  part  of  my  days,  but  without 
an  adequate  authority  from  usage. 

11.  I  said,  I  shall  not  see  Jah,  Jah  in  the  land  of  the  living  ;  I  shall  not 
behold  man  again  (or  longer)  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  world.  H*  TV  is  not 
an  error  of  the  text  for  nin^  (Houbigant),  but  an  intensive  repetition 
similar  to  those  in  vers.  17-19.  Or  the  second  may  be  added  to  explain 
and  qualify  the  first.  He  did  expect  to  sec  God,  but  not  in  the  land  of  the 
living.  This  is  better  than  to  make  the  second  H'  the  subject  of  a  distinct 
proposition,  as  Luzzatto  does,  /  shall  not  see  Jah,  {for)  Jah  [is  only  to  he 
seen)  in  the  land  of  the  living.  The  same  writer  regards  this  as  the  appro- 
priate name  of  God  considered  as  a  gracious  being.  He  supposes  it  to  have 
been  originally  an  exclamation  of  delight  or  joy,  corresponding  to  1^1  [oxial, 
vae),  as  an  exclamation  of  distress  or  fear,  from  the  combination  of  which 
arose  the  name  niil"',  denoting  an  object  both  of  love  and  fear.  For  other 
explanations  of  the  name  i^*,  see  above,  on  chap.  xii.  1,  and  xxvi.  4.  The 
land  of  the  living  is  not  the  Holy  Land  (Hendewerk),  but  the  present  life. 
The  preposition  CV  may  connect  what  follows  either  with  the  subject  or  the 
object  of  the  verb;  I  with  the  inhabitants,  or,  man  with  tie  inhabitants. 
^^^,  which  strictly  means  cessation,  is  regarded  by  the  older  writers  as  a 
description  of  this  transitory  life  or  fleeting  world.  Vitringa  objects,  that  ho 
would  not  have  regix'tted  leaving  such  a  world,  and  therefore  applies  ^*in  to 
the  state  of  death.  7,  irith  (or  among)  the  iiihalitants  of  [the  land  of) 
stillness^  shall  no  more  see  man.  This  is  adopted  by  Gcsenius  and  the  other 
modem  \\Titer3.  It  may  be  objected,  however,  that  it  needlessly  violates 
the  parallelism,  on  which  so  much  stress  is  elsewhere  laid,  and  which  plainly 
indicates  in  this  case,  that  the  last  words  of  the  verse   bear  the  same  rela- 

VOL.   II.  F 


82  ISAIJII  XXXVIII.  [Ver.  12. 

tion  to  I  ihdl  not  see  man,  that  the  wortls  ///  the  hind  nf  the  Uviti^  bear  to 
/  shall  not  see  J  ah.  If  the  latter  designate  ihe  place  in  which  he  was  no 
more  to  see  God,  then  the  former  would  naturally  seem  to  designate  the 
place  in  which  he  was  no  more  to  see  man.  Another  reason  for  preferring 
the  old  interpretation  is  aflbrded  by  the  obvious  attinity  between  the  expres- 
sion here  and  that  in  Ps.  xlix.  2.  Hear  thin,  all  the  nations]  ijire  ear,  all  the 
inhabitants  nf  the  u-nrld  (*l^n  ♦QtJ^).  That  the  text  in  one  of  these  cases  is 
to  be  corrected  by  the  other,  or  that  one  of  them  arose  from  misapprehen- 
sion of  the  other,  are  superticiiil  and  uncritical  assumptions.  That  the  one 
was  suggested  by  the  other,  but  with  an  intentional  change  of  form,  so  as  to 
furnish  two  descriptions  of  the  present  life,  alike  in  sound  but  not  identical 
is  sense,  is  not  only  probable  in  itself,  but  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the 
genius  of  the  language  and  the  usage  of  the  sacred  writers.  (See  above, 
chap,  xxxni.  24.)  As  to  the  objection,  that  Hezekiah  would  not  have  been 
loath  to  leave  a  world  so  transient  and  unsatisfying,  it  is  not  only  contra- 
dicted by  experience,  but  admits  of  this  solution,  that  its  transitory  nature 
was  the  very  thing  for  which  he  grieved. 

12.  Ml/  dueUin(i  is  plucked  up  and  uncorered  by  me  (or  a  ic  ay  from  me) 
like  a  shepherd's  tent.  I  hare  rolled  up,  like  the  wearer,  my  life ;  from  the 
thrum  he  tvill  cut  me  off";  from  day  to  niyhl  ihou  wilt  finish  me.  The  samo 
thing  is  here  represented  by  two  tignres.  The  first  is  that  of  a  tent,  the 
stakes  of  which  are  pulled  up,  and  the  covering  removed,  with  a  view  to 
departure.  The  usual  sense  of  "11"^  {fjencration)  seems  inappropriate  here. 
For  th:it  of  age  or  life  there  is  no  authority  in  usage.  That  of  dtvellinij  is 
founded  on  the  Arabic  analogy,  and  yields  a  good  sense,  not  only  here  but 

in  Ps.  xlix.  20.  Most  interpreters  explain  n7^3  as  meaning  removed  or  de- 
parted, a  sense  which  it  has  not  elsewhere.  Its  usual  sense,  uncorered,  is 
entirely  appropriate,  and  exactly  descriptive  of  a  part  of  the  process  of  strik- 
ing a  tent.  The  ^3P  may  then  be  understood,  cither  as  ruferring  the  act 
described  to  the  speaker,  or  as  making  him  the  object  from  which  the  re- 
moval was  to  take  place.  On  the  latter  hypothesis,  some  of  the  German 
wTiters  enter  into  profound  discussions  whether  Hezekiah  meant  to  identify 
the  Ich  or  personal  principle  with  his  body  or  his  soul,  or  with  both, 
or  with  neither.  The  second  figure  is  that  of  a  web  completed  and  removed 
by  the  weaver  from  the  loom.  The  old  interpretation  of  ''!^'7^i?  makes  it 
mean  cut  off;  the  modern  one  rolled  ti/i ;  the  allusion  in  either  case  being 
to  a  weaver's  mode  of  finishing  his  work.  To  make  this  verb  passive  or 
reflexive,  is  entirely  arbitrar}-.  Still  more  so  is  a  change  of  person  from 
the  first  to  the  second,  since  the  same  succession  of  the  first,  second,  and 
third  persons  reappears  in  the  next  verse.  It  is  not  even  necessary  to  make 
the  verb  causative  (/  hare  caused  him  to  cut  out  or  roll  up  my  life).  The 
true  solution  is  proposed  by  Calvin,  viz.  that  he  first  thinks  of  himself  as 
the  guilty  cause  of  his  own  death,  and  then  of  God  as  tlie  t  lUcient  agent. 
Umbreit  imagines  that  he  here  describes  himself  as  dying  by  a  voluntary 
act,  as  Schloierniachor  is  said  by  one  of  his  biographers  to  have  done,  in- 
stead of  dying  like  other  men,  because  he  could  not  help  it.  This  is  not 
only  unnatural  and  irrational  in  itself,  but  inconsistent  with  the  context, 
where  the  king  is  represented  as  anything  rather  than  a  voluntary  suflbrer. 
According  to  the  latest  writers,  n^^D  does  not  mean  uilh  piiiiny  sickncM, 
noT  from  a  slate  of  craltation,  hni  from  the  thrum  (as  in  the  margin  of  the 
Knglish  liililc),  i.e.  the  ends  of  the  threads  by  which  the  web  is  fastened 
to  the  beam.     Lowth  gives  the  same  sense  by  employing  the  more  general 


Ver.  13,  14.]  ISAIAH  XXXVJII.  83 

term  loom.  From  day  to  uii/ht  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  be/ore  to- 
morrow,  within  the  space  of  one  day.  The  verb  in  the  last  clanse  mi<^ht, 
without  violence  to  etvmoloi^y  or  usage,  be  explained  to  mean  thou  wilt  (or 
do  thou)  make  iwi  whole.  But  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  in  giving  it 
the  opposite  sense  of  thou  wilt  make  an  end  of  me.  Some  suppose,  more- 
over, that  the  figure  of  a  weaver  and  his  web  is  still  continued,  and  that  the 
idea  expressed  in  the  last  clause  is  that  oi  finishing  a  piece  of  work. 

l;}.  I  set  {him  be/ore  me)  till  the  morning  {i.  e.  all  night)  as  a  lion  (say- 
ing), so  will  he  break  all  my  bones  ;  from  day  to  night  thou  wilt  make  an  end 
of  me.  Either  these  last  words  are  repeated  in  a  dilVerent  sense,  or  else  the 
repetition  shews  that  they  have  no  special  reference,  in  the  foregoing  verso, 
to  the  process  of  weaving.  Gesenius  seems  to  treat  with  contempt  the 
suggestion  of  an  inadvertent  repetition  on  the  part  of  some  transcriber, 
though  he  has  no  ditliculty  in  adopting  it  when  it  can  serve  a  useful  pui*pose. 
Most  writers  disregard  the  Masoretic  interpunction,  and  connect  like  a  lion 
with  the  second  clause.  They  are  then  obliged  to  take  *n*-1C'  in  the  sense 
of  /  reckoned  (i.  e.  counted  the  hours,  or  reckoned  that  as  a  lion,  Sec),  or 
as  meaning  1  endured,  or  I  composed,  myself,  neither  of  which  has  any  suffi- 
cient ground  iu  the  usage  of  the  language,  and  the  last  of  which  requires 
hut  to  be  arbitrarily  applied.  Jarchi  adheres  to  the  Masoretic  accents,  and 
explains  the  first  clause,  I  likened  myself  to  (or  made  myself  like)  a  lion  {i.e. 
roared)  until  the  morning.  To  this  it  has  been  objected,  not  without  reason, 
that  as  the  crushing  of  the  bones  involves  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  lion 
(compare  Ps.  vii.  3),  we  then  have  the  same  figure  used  to  represent  both 
the  suflerer  and  the  author  of  his  sutierings,  which  is  forced  and  unnatural. 
The  Masoretic  interpunction  may,  however,  be  retained  without  this  incon- 
venience, by  explaining  TITC'  in  accordance  with  its  usage  in  Ps.  xvi.  8,  and 
cxix.  30.  In  the  former  case,  the  Psalmist  says,  /  have  set  Jehovah  before 
me  always,  i.  e.  I  continually  recognise  his  presence,  or  regard  him  as 
present.  In  the  other  case,  the  same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed  by  the 
verb  alone,  with  an  ellipsis  of  the  qualifying  phrase.  Thy  judgments  have 
I  pi  (iced  [i.e.  before  me).  Supposing  a  similar  ellipsis  here,  the  sense  will 
be,  /  set  him  before  me,  i.  e.  viewed  him  as  present,  imagined  or  conceived 
of  him  as  a  lion,  and  expected  him  to  act  as  such,  saying,  so  [i.  e.  as  a  hon) 
he  will  crush  all  mg  bones.  If  this  be  the  true  construction,  it  removes  all 
ground  for  making /<-«>•,  or  pain,  or  the  di~iease,  the  nominative  of  the  verb 
will  break,  and  leaves  it  to  agree  with  Jehovah,  as  the  natural  subject  of 
the  sentence.  This  construction  is  further  recommended  by  its  giving 
uniformity  of  meaning  to  the  clauses,  as  descriptive  of  the  sufferer's 
apprehensions. 

14.  Like  a  swallow  (or)  a  crane  (or  like  a  twittering  swallow),  so  I  chirp; 
T  moan  like  the  dove;  my  eyes  are  tveak  (with  looking)  upward  (or  on  high); 
0  Jehovah,  I  am-  oppressed,  undertake  for  me  (or  be  my  surety).  In  the 
first  clause  the  meanings  of  the  suflerer  are  compared,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  to  the  voice  of  certain  animals.  The  dove  is  often  spoken  of  in  such 
connections,  and  the  mention  of  it  here  makes  it  probable  that  the  parallel 
expressions  arc  also  descriptive  of  a  bird  or  birds.  DID  is  the  common 
Hebrew  word  for  horse,  and  is  so  explained  even  here  by  Aquila,  who  retains 
ll^y  without  translation.  Theodt)tion  retains  both,  but  writes  the  first  oT; 
(D'P),  which  Jerome  thinks  is  probably  the  true  text.  This  same  reading 
appears  as  a  Keri  in  the  Masoretic  text  of  Jer.  viii.  7,  the  only  other  place 
where  the  word  seems  to  signify  a  bird.  The  old  rabbinical  interpretation 
gives  to  D-1D  the  sense  of  crane,  and  to  "il^V  ^^'^^  of  sivalluw.     Bochart  re- 


84  ISAIJII  :XXXVIIL  [Yer.  15. 

verses  them,  and  undertakes  to  shew  that  "W^V  is  the  Hehrew  word  for  crane. 
This  word  affords  a  curious  instance  of  the  way  in  which  Gesenius  some- 
timos  leaves  his  followers  and  transcribers  in  the  lurch.  In  his  Com- 
mentary, while  he  speaks  of  "Vljy  as  a  word  of  doubtful  import,  he  gives 
Boehart's  explanation  as  upon  the  whole  the  most  probable.  Some  of  his 
copyists  go  further,  and  allege  that  it  certainly  means  crane.  In  the  mean 
time,  Gesenius,  in  his  Manual  Lexicon,  rejects  Bochart's  proofs  as  invalid, 
and  explains  II^V  as  a  description  of  the  gyratory  motion  of  the  swallow.  In 
the  Thesaurus,  this  is  abandoned  in  its  turn,  and  the  word  explained  to  mean 
chirping  or  twittering.  Maurer  objects  to  the  explanation  of  "iliV  as  a  mere 
descriptive  epithet,  that  in  Jer.  viii.  7  we  have  IIJVI  DID  as  two  independent 
substantives.  To  this  Gesenius  replies,  that  the  epithet  is  there  used  as  a 
poetical  substitute  for  the  noun,  or  perhaps  the  name  of  a  particular  species. 
On  any  supposition,  the  comparison  before  us  is  evidently  meant  to  be  de- 
scriptive of  inarticulate  moans  or  murmurs.  The  reference  of  the  verbs  in 
the  first  clause  to  past  time  (/  cliirped,  I  mnaned),  though  assumed  by  most 
interpreters,  is  perfectly  gratuitous,  when  the  future  proper  yields  so  good 
a  sense.  This  violation  of  the  syntax  has  arisen  from  assuming  that  the 
clause  must  be  a  retrospective  description  of  something  already  past,  and 
not  an  expression  of  present  feeling  such  as  he  might  have  uttered  at  the 
moment.  That  this  last  is  no  unnatural  hypothesis,  is  certain  from  the 
fact  that  all  interpreters  adopt  it  in  the  other  clause.  But  if  that  may  be 
the  language  of  the  sufferer  at  the  time  of  his  distress,  it  is  equally  natural, 
or  rather  more  so,  to  explain  the  first  clause  in  the  same  way.  Clericus 
understands  l^'?  as  meaning  lifted  up,  which  he  admits  to  be  a  mere  con- 
jecture having  no  foundation  in  usage,  but  rendered  necessarj'  by  the  addi- 
tion of  D1"1D/.  Most  interpreters  regard  it  as  an  instance  of  constnictio 
pnrr/nans,  and  retain  the  proper  meaning  of  the  verb.     Hitzig  makes  i^PiiV 

an  imperative,  and  identities  it  with  the  Arabic  Ji-i-i  to  love  tenderly  or 

ardently.  Incline  thy  heart  to  me.  There  is,  however,  no  necessity  or 
warrant  for  departing  from  the  Hebrew  usage  of  v^'V  to  do  violence  or  op- 
press. The  older  writers  supply  a  definite  subject,  such  as  death,  my 
disease,  or  the  like.  Ewald  makes  it  impersonal,  //  is  oppressed  to  vie,  i.  e. 
I  am  oppressed.  (losenius  treats  it  as  a  noun  {there  is)  appressinn  to  me, 
and  explains  the  Metheg  as  a  mere  sign  of  the  secondary  accent.  Junius 
and  Tremellius  render  '?3"!1V  treave  me  throwjh  (perte-xe  me),  i.e.  do  not  cut 
out  the  unfinished  web.  But  this  return  to  the  metaphor  of  ver.  12,  after 
alluding  in  the  mean  time  to  a  lion,  to  a  swallow,  to  a  crane,  and  to  a  dove, 
would  be  exceedingly  unnatural,  and  although  not  impossible  can  only  be 
assumed  in  case  of  extreme  exegetical  necessity,  which  certainly  has  no 
existence  here.  The  same  word  is  used  in  Ps.  cxix.  122,  in  the  sense  of 
vndertake  for  me  or  In'  my  surety,  i.  e.  interpose  between  me  and  my  enemies. 
The  reference  is  rather  to  protection  than  to  justification.  Gill  carries  out 
the  metaphor  to  an  extreme  by  saying  that  Hezekiah  here  represents  his 
disease  a*  a  hai/ijf  fhiif  had  arrested  him,  and  was  earryiny  him  to  the  prison 
of  the  yrare,  and  therefore  prays  that  the  Lord  would  bail  him  or  rescue  him 
out  of  his  hands. 

\^i.  What  shall  I  soy  .'  ]{,■  hath  both  spoken  to  me,  and  himself  hath  done 
{it) :  I  shall  go  softly  all  my  years  fur  the  bitterness  of  my  soul.  This,  ^^  hieh 
is  substantially  the  common  version,  is  the  one  adopted  by  most  modem 
writers,  who  regard  the  verse  as  an  expression  of  snqirise  and  joy  at  the 
deliverance  experienced.      ^Vhal  shall  J  say .'  i.  e.  how  shall  I  express  my 


Ver.  IG,  17.]  ISAIAH  XXXVIII.  85 

gratitude  and  wonder  !  He  hath  said  and  done  it,  he  has  promised  and 
performed,  perhaps  with  an  implication  that  the  promise  was  no  sooner 
given  than  fulfilled.  The  recollection  of  this  signal  mercy  he  is  re:3olved  to 
cherish  ult  his  years,  i.  e.  throughout  his  life,  by  'joinff  softly,  solemnly,  or 
slowly,  on  account  of  the  bitterness  of  his  soul,  i.  e.  in  recollection  of  his  suf- 
ferings. Some,  however,  understand  these  last  words  to  mean;j/i  the  bitter- 
ness of  my  sonl,  i.  e.  in  perpetual  contrition  and  humility.  But  the 
preposition  ?y  is  properl}'  expressive,  not  of  the  manner  of  his  going,  but 
of  its  occasion.  The  verb  H^"!^  occurs  only  here  and  in  Ps.  xliii.  5,  where 
it  is  commonly  agreed  to  signify  the  solemn  march  of  the  people  in  proces- 
sion to  mount  Zion.  It  would  here  seem  to  be  equivalent  to  the  phrase 
ON*  "I^n  applied  to  Ahab  in  1  Kings  xxi.  27.  Another  interpretation  of  the 
verso,  which  might,  at  first  sight,  seem  more  natural,  regards  it  as  the  lan- 
guage of  Hezekiah  during  his  sicliness,  and  as  expressive,  not  of  joy  and 
wonder,  but  of  submission.  What  shall  I  say,  in  the  way  of  complaint? 
He  hath  both  said  and  done  it,  i,  e.  threatened  and  performed  it.  But  this 
view  of  the  first  clause  cannot  be  reconciled  with  any  natural  interpretation 
of  the  second,  where  the  phrase  all  my  years  is  consistent  with  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  expected  to  die  forthwith. 

16.  Lord,  upon  them  they  live,  a7id  as  to  every  thing  in  them  is  the  life  of 
my  spirit,  and  thou  tvilt  recover  me  and  make  me  live.  This  exceedingly 
obscure  verse  is  now  most  generally  understood  to  mean,  that  life  in  general, 
and  the  life  of  Hezekiah  in  particular,  was  dependent  on  the  power  and 
promise  of  God.  Upon  them,  the  promise  and  performance  implied  in  the 
verbs  said  and  did  of  the  preceding  verse,  they  live,  i.  e.  men  indefinitely 
live.  The  sense  of  ?y,  when  construed  thus  with  n^n,  is  clear  from  such 
examples  as  Gen.  xx.  27,  Deut.  viii.  6.  Some  suppose  ?3  to  govern  ""H, 
notwithstanding  the  intervening  word  1^2,  and  the  prefix  ?,  which  must  then 
be  pleonastic.  All  the  life  of  my  spirit  (is)  in  them.  A  similar  construc- 
tion is  to  make  >'3?  an  adverbial  phrase  meaning  as  to  (or  irith  respect 
to)  every  thing.     The  other  attempts   which  have  been  made   to   explain 

DHvy  as  referring  to  the  bone^  of  Hezekiah,  or  his  years,  or  his  snhjects,  or 
those  over  whom  (God  is)  Lord,  are  so  forced,  that  the  one  first  given,  not- 
withstanding its  obscurity  and  harshness,  seems  entitled  to  the  preference. 
The  explanation  of  the  future  and  imperative  in  the  last  clause  as  referring 
to  past  time  {thou  hast  recovered  me  and  made  me  live)  is  not  only  arbitrary 
but  gratuitous,  as  it  assumes  without  necessity  that  such  a  prayer  or  expec- 
tation could  not  have  been  uttered  after  Hezekiah' s  recovery,  whereas  it  is 
a  natural  expression  of  desire  that  what  had  been  begun  might  be  continued 
and  completed.  ^3"nn  is  not  an  infinitive,  which  would  here  take  the  con- 
struct form,  but  an  imperative.  In  either  case,  its  meaning  is  determined 
by  the  foregoing  future,  so  that  both  verbs  may  take  the  future  form  in 
translation.  The  original  form  of  expression  may,  however,  be  retained  in 
English,  by  omitting  the  auxiliary  in  the  second  future. 

17.  Behold  to  peace  {is  turned)  my  bitter  bitterness,  and  thou  hast  lorrd 
my  soul  from  the  pit  of  destruction,  because  thou  hast  cast  behind  thy  back  all 
my  sins.  The  idea  of  change  or  conversion  must  either  be  supplied,  or 
supposed  to  be  expressed  by  I?,  which  is  then  the  preterite  of  "MO,  not 
elsewhere  used  in  Kal,  although  the  Hiphil  is  of  frequent  occurrence. 
Most  of  the  late  writers  understand  ""3  ^"?  "lO  as  an  emphatic  or  intensive 
repetition,  of  which  there  are  several  examples  in  this  passage  (vers.  11,  19), 


80  ISALin  XAWVni.  [Veb.  18-20. 

and  suppose  the  verb  to  be  suppressed,  or  suj,'gested  by  tbe  prcposit'on  /. 
The  Euglish  Bible,  and  some  other  versions,  put  an  opposite  meaning  on 
the  chiuse,  as  a  description,  not  of  his  restoration  but  of  his  affliction.  For 
peace  I  had  (jieat  billenies.i,  or,  on  nuj  peace  (came)  tprat  biUerness.  The 
other  interpretation  nj^TCts  belter  with  tlie  usaf,'e  of  the  preposition,  and 
makes  the  parallelism  more  excct.  We  have  here  another  instance  of  pro<^- 
naut  construction,  to  lore  from,  i.e.  no  to  love  as  to  lU-Urer  from.  This 
sense  is  expn-ssed  in  the  Knf:;lish  Bible  by  a  circumlocution.  V?  means 
properly  nonentity,  annihilation,  here  put  for  perdition  or  "  destruction  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glorj-  of  his  power"  (2  Thtss.  i.  9). 
The  last  clause  shews  that  Ilezekiah  regarded  the  threatened  destruction  as 
a  punishment  of  sin.  To  cast  behind  one,  or  behind  one's  back,  in  Hebrew 
and  Ambic,  is  to  for-^et,  lose  sight  of  or  exclude  from  view.  The  opposite 
idea  is  expressed  by  the  figure  of  setting  or  keeping  before  one's  eyes.  (See 
Ps.  xc.  8,  cix.  14,  15,  Jer.  xvi.  17,  Hosca  vii.  2.) 

18.  For  the  grave  shall  not  confess  thee  {nor)  death  praise  thee  ;  they  that 
go  down  to  the  pit  shall  not  hope  for  thy  truth.  Here,  as  often  in  the 
Psalms,  the  loss  of  the  opportunity  of  praising  God  is  urged  as  a  reason, 
not  only  why  he  should  be  loath  to  die,  but  why  God  should  preserve  him. 
(See  Ps,  vi.  (I,  Ixxxviii.  11,  12.)  It  does  not  follow  from  these  words  either 
that  Hezckiah  had  no  cxpcctatiou  of  a  future  state,  or  that  the  soul  remains 
unconscious  till  the  resurrection.  The  true  explanation  of  the  word  is  given 
by  Calvin,  viz.  that  the  language  is  that  of  e.xtreme  agitation  and  distress, 
in  which  the  prospect  of  the  future  is  absorbed  in  contemplation  of  the 
present,  and  also  that  so  far  as  he  does  think  of  futurity,  it  is  upon  the 
supposition  of  God's  wrath.  Regarding  death,  in  this  case,  as  a  proof  of 
the  divine  displeasure,  he  cannot  but  look  upon  it  as  the  termination  of 
his  solemn  praises.  The  truth  mentioned  in  the  last  clause  is  the  truth  of 
God's  promises,  to  hope  for  which  is  to  expect  the  promised  blessing, 
"inin  N7  strictly  means,  shall  not  acknouledge  thee,  with  special  reference  to 
the  acknowledgment  of  favours,  or  thanksgiving.  The  influence  of  the 
negative  extends  to  the  second  clause,  as  in  chap,  xxiii.  4.  (See  above 
p.  870.) 

19.  The  living,  the  living,  he  shall  thank  thee,  like  me  (or  as  I  do)  to-day : 
father  to  sons  shall  make  known  icith  respect  to  thy  truth,  i.  e.  the   truth   of 

thy  promises,  as  in  the  verse  preceding.  Only  the  living  could  praise  God 
in  that  way  to  which  the  writer  was  accustomed,  and  on  which  his  eye  is 
here  fixed,  with  special  reference,  no  doubt,  to  the  external  sernce  of  the 
t<.'mple.  The  last  clause  must  bo  taken  in  a  general  sense,  as  Ilezekiah 
was  himself  still  childless. 

20.  Jehovah  to  save  me  !  And  my  songs  tee  will  play,  all  the  days  of  our 
life,  at  the  house  of  Jehovah.  The  obvious  ellipsis  in  the  first  clause  may 
be  variously  filK-d  with  came,  hastened,  commanded,  teas  ready,  l>€  pleased, 
or  with  the  verb  is,  as  an  idiomatic  periphras  s  of  the  future,  is  to  save  for 
tmll  satv.  The  reference  to  the  future  and  the  past  is  equally  admissible, 
since  God,  in  one  sense,  had  already  saved  him,  and  in  another  was  to  s.ive 
him  still.  nrJJ  is  propi-rly  the  music  of  stringed  instruments,  or  a  song 
intinded  to  be  so  accompanied.  The  word  may  here  be  used  in  the  more 
general  sense  of  song  or  music  ;  but  there  seems  to  hi-  no  need  of  exclud- 
ing the  original  and  proper  meaning.  The  singular  form,  my  song,  refers 
to  Ilezekiah  as  the  author  of  this  composition  ;  the  plurals,  ice  tvill  sing 
and  ottr  lives,  to  tlio  multitude  who  might  bo  expected  to  join  in  his  public 
thanksgiving,  not  only  at  first,  but  in  after  ages.     The  use  of  7y  is  explained 


Yer.  21,  22.J  ISAIAH  2:XXVIII.  87 

by  some  as  an  allusion  to  the  elevated  site  of  the  temple ;  but  it  seems  to 
be  I'ather  a  licence  of  construction,  similar  to  our  promiscuous  use  of  at  and 
ii},  with  names  of  towns.  It  is  a  possible  but  not  a  necessiu'y  supposition, 
that  this  particle  may  here  denote  upward  motion,  as  in  a  procession  from 
the  lower  city  to  the  temple.  We  will  simj  or  lAuy  mij  souf/s,  till  the  days 
of  our  liie*t,  ii}i  to  tlie  hoit-'<e  of  the  Lord.  The  general  sense  in  either  case 
is  that  of  public  and  perpetual  praise,  the  promise  of  which  closes  this  re- 
markable production. 

21.  And  [saiah  said,  Let  Jiim  take  a  lump  (or  cake)  of  fu/ii,  and  rub  them 
(or  lay  them  softened)  on  the  boil  (or  inflammation),  and  he  shall  live  (or  let 
him  live)  i.  e.  recover.  The  indirect  construction,  preferred  by  most  of  the 
moilern  writers,  that  they  should  take,  and  thai  he  miyht  recover,  is  entirely 
unnecessar}-,  since  the  words  may  naturally  be  regarded  as  the  very  words 
spoken  by  the  Prophet  himself.  HID  seems  properly  to  have  the  sense  of 
rubbing,  either  in  reference  to  the  application,  or  to  the  preparing  of  the 
figs  by  trituration.  The  latter  explanation  is  now  commonly  preferred. 
Grotius  follows  some  of  the  rabbinical  interpreters  in  the  assumption  that 
the  natural  effect  of  such  an  application  would  have  been  injurious.  But 
although  this  may  seem  to  magnify  the  miracle,  it  is  a  gratuitous  assump- 
tion, and  directly  contradicted  by  the  modern  oriental  practice  of  applying 
figs  to  pestilential  pustules,  for  the  purpose  of  maturing  their  discharge. 
Such  a  pustule  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  denoted  by  pnC',  both  here  and 
elsewhere,  although  some  choose  to  adhere  to  what  they  thiuk  the  primary 
sense  of  inflammation.  Hitzig  makes  this  noun  the  subject  of  the  very  *n* 
{that  it  miyht  be  healed)  on  the  authority-  of  Lev.  xiii.  10,  14,  15  ;  but  the 
analogy  of  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter  now  before  us  seems  to  be  decisive  in 
favour  of  the  usual  construction,  which  makes  the  verb  refer  to  Hezekiah. 

22.  And  Hezekiah  said,  What  siyn  that  I  shall  go  up  [to)  the  house  of 
Jefiucak  /  The  ellipsis  is  easily  supplied  by  reading,  what  siyn  dost  thou 
give,  or  what  siyn  is  there,  or  more  simply  still,  what  is  the  siyn  f  The  cou- 
struftion  of  HD  as  an  exclamation  of  surprise  [what  a  miracle !)  is  neither 
natural  in  itself,  nor  justified  by  usage,  in  a  case  where  the  usual  interroga- 
tive sense  is  perfectly  appropriate.  Tlie  question  is  more  fully  given  in 
2  Kings  XX.  8  as  follows.  And  Ilc^elriih  said  to  Isaiah,  What  siyn  that 
Jehovah  is  about  to  heal  me,  and  that  I  shall  go  up,  on  the  third  dag,  to  the 
house  of  Jehovah  ?  The  reference  is  to  the  promise  as  recorded  in  ver.  5 
of  the  same  chapter.  Return  and  sag  to  IIe,zekiuh,  the  chief  of  nxg  people. 
Thus  said  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Ihtvid  thg  father,  I  have  heard  thg  prayer,  I 
have  seen  thg  tears  ;  behold,  I  am  about  to  heal  thee  ;  on  the  third  day  thou 
shalt  yo  up  to  the  house  of  Jehovah.  The  last  two  verses  of  this  chapter  in 
Isaiah  are  evidently  out  of  their  chronological  order,  and  the  question  has 
been  raised,  whether  this  transposition  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  original 
writer,  and  if  so,  how  it  is  to  be  accounted  for.  The  hj-pothesis  which  have 
been  proposed  may  be  reduced  to  three.  The  first  is,  that  the  transposi- 
tion is  an  error  of  transcription,  arising  from  the  mere  inadvertence  of  some 
ancient  copyist.  Besides  the  difficulty  common  to  all  such  suppositions, 
that  errors  of  the  kind  supposed,  although  they  might  take  place,  could 
scarcely  become  universal,  it  is  here  precluded  by  the  fact,  that  these  two 
verses  cannot  be  inserted  in  the  text  above  without  breaking  its  continuity, 
and  cannot  therefore  have  dropped  out  of  it,  unless  we  take  for  granted  also, 
that  the  text,  was  altered  after  the  omission,  which  is  only  adding  arbi- 
trarily another  to  the  gratuitous  assumptions  made  before.  Some  avoid  this 
dillicully  by  supposing  that  the  verses  do  not  properly  belong  to  this  text, 


8S  ISAIAH  XJX IX.  [Vkr.  1. 

but  were  added  bv  a  later  hand,  in  onler  to  complete  the  narrative  as  given 
in  the  second  book  of  Kings.  Apart  from  the  natural  presumption  against 
all  such  imaginary  facts,  except  where  the  assuming  of  them  cannot  be 
avoided,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  a  copyist  or  critic,  who  would  use 
such  freedom  with  the  text,  would  have  used  more,  and  inserted  this  state- 
ment in  its  proper  place.  It  is  only  necessary  to  compare  these  fanciful 
hypotheses  with  the  obvious  and  simple  supposition  that  the  passage  before 
us  is  the  first  draught  or  original  form  of  Isaiah's  narrative,  in  which  the 
facts  recorded  in  these  two  last  verses  were  added  by  a  kind  of  after-thought, 
and  that  in  re-writing  the  account,  as  a  part  of  the  national  histon.',  he 
naturally  placed  them  in  their  chronological  order.  It  would  probably  be 
easy  to  produce  many  parallel  cases  from  the  correspondence  of  voluminous 
letter -writers,  or  from  other  cases  of  repeated  composition  on  the  same 
subject  by  the  same  writer.  However  this  may  be,  it  seems  clear  that  the 
explanation  now  proposed  is  simpler  in  itself,  and  requires  less  to  be  ima- 
gined or  supposed,  than  any  other,  and  is  therefore,  even  on  the  strictest 
principles  of  criticism,  entitled  to  the  preference. 


CHAPTER   XXXIX. 

This  chapter  contains  an  account  of  the  Babylonian  embassy  to  Hezekiah, 
and  of  his  indiscreet  and  ostentatious  conduct,  which  became  the  occasion 
of  a  threatening  message  by  the  hands  of  Isaiah,  predicting  the  Babylonian 
coufpiest  and  captivity,  but  with  a  tacit  promise  of  exemption  to  the  king 
himself,  and  to  the  country,  while  he  lived,  which  he  received  with  humble 
acquiescence  and  thankful  acknowledgment. 

The  chapter  is  evidently  a  direct  continuation  of  the  narrative  before  it, 
nor  is  there  any  real  ground,  internal  or  external,  for  suspecting  its  authen- 
ticity, antiquity,  or  genuineness. 

1.  In  that  time,  Jlerodach  Bahidan,  son  of  Baladan,  king  of  Babylon, 
sent  Idlers  and  a  (jift  to  Hezekiah,  and  he  heard  that  he  teas  sick  atid  was 
recovered.  The  first  phrase  is  used  with  great  latitude  of  meaning,  and  may 
either  describe  one  event  as  contemponiiieous  with  another,  or  as  following 
it,  at  ouce  or  more  remotely.  Kuobel  supposes  it  to  mean  here  simply  in 
the  days  of  Hezekiah.  Most  other  writers  take  it  for  granted  that  this  mes- 
sage of  congratulation  must  have  been  sent  soon  after  the  recovery  of  Heze- 
kiah. These  understand  VOy*?!  as  etjuivalent  in  meaning  to  V^'  "?  2  Kings. 
XX.  12,  and  exj)lain  all  theVi^rbs  of  the  last  clause  as  pluperfects  {fi>rhe  had 
heard,  Sec).  Knobel,  on  the  contrary,  gives  1  its  usual  sense,  and  undirslands 
the  clause  to  mean,  that  the  king  of  liabylou  heard  of  He/.ekiahs  sickness 
from  his  ambassadors  on  their  return.  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  paral- 
lel statement,  assumes  a  needless  prolepsis  or  anticipation,  and  encumbers 
the  narrative  with  a  fact  entirely  superfluous.  ^V'hat  the  ambassadors  reported 
lo  the  king  on  their  return,  is  of  no  importunce  to  the  histori-.  Merudach 
occurs  in  Jcr.  1.  2,  as  the  name  of  a  Babylonian  idol.  (Irolius  supposes 
that  a  man  of  that  name  had  boon  defiled  ;  others,  that  it  was  common  to 
name  men  after  gods,  llit/.ig  identities  the  name  with  the  Persian  dimi- 
nutive cJj^«  ''"'«'  '"""  ('»*^  tt  term  of  endearment),  Gesenius  with  the 
Mars  of  classical  mythol()g\-.  In  2  Kings  xx.  11,  it  is  written  Bemdach. 
which  Hiller  explains  as  a  contraction  of  Bar  Mcrodach,  the  son  of  Mero- 
doch,  while  Knobel  regards  it  as  a  mere  mistake,  and  Gesenius  ti»  a  custo- 
mary variation,  h  and  m  being  often  interchanged.     Two  manuscripts  read 


Ver.  2.j  ISAIAH  XXXIX.  89 

Ilerodach  in  the  case  before  us,  and  a  few  havt-  the  transposed  form  Me Juracli. 
Jntlttildii,  according  to  Von  Buhlen,  is  a  Persian  word  meaning  pruisnl ; 
according  to  Gesenius,  an  Aramean  comjjouiui  meaning  ]lel  {is  his)  lorJ. 
llitzig  explains  bal  as  a  connective  syllable,  like  juA  in  Xabupolassur,  iml 
in  Sardanapalus,  &c.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  agree  with  Yitringa  in 
ideiitifyiug  this  king  with  the  Matdohcin/nid  of  Berosus,  as  preserved  in  the 
Ainieuian  version  of  Eusebius  ;  but  Knobel  understands  him  as  naming 
Merodach  lialadan  distinctl}'.  The  same  authority  describes  these  Baby- 
lonian princes,  not  as  sovereigns,  but  as  ■\icero3-s  or  tributaries  subject  to 
Assyria.  In  that  case,  it  is  not  improbable  that  Mero  Inch  Baladan  was 
meditating  a  revolt,  and  sent  this  embassy  to  gain  Hezekiah's  co-operation. 
The  congratulation  on  his  recovery  may  have  been  a  secondary  object,  or 
perhaps  a  mere  pretext.  In  2  Chron.  xxxii.  31,  a  further  design  is  men- 
tioned, namely,  to  inquire  of  the  ivonder  that  tons  done  in  the  land,  whether 
this  be  understood  to  mean  the  destruction  of  Seunachorib's  army,  or  the 
miraculous  recession  of  the  shadow.  There  is  no  incompatibility  between 
these  different  designs.  Perhaps  an  embassy  is  seldom  bent  to  such  a  dis- 
tance with  a  single  undivided  errand. 

2.  And  Hezekiah  ivas  (jlad  of  them,  and  shewed  them  his  house  of  rarities, 
the  silver,  and  the  (/old,  and  the  spices,  and  the  good  oil  (or  ointment),  and 
all  Jiis  house  of  arms,  and  all  that  was  found  in,  Ji  is  treasures ;  theie  tvas 
not  a  thimj  which  Hezekiah  did  not  shew  them,  in  his  house  and  in  all  his 
dominion.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xx.  13)  has  DHvy  ytDt^'*1,  which 
Knobel  understands  to  mean  that  he  heard  of  them,  but  which  seems  to  be 
more  correctly  rendered  in  the  English  Bible,  and  he  hearkened  unto  them. 
There  is  no  need  of  regarding  either  as  an  error  of  transcription,  or  as  the 
correction  of  a  later  writer.  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  such  a 
variation  on  the  part  of  the  original  writer,  describing  Hezekiah's  feehngs 
in  the  one  case  and  his  conduct  in  the  other.  He  hearkened  to  them  cour- 
teously because  he  was  glad  of  their  arrival.  Henderson  says,  he  ivas  de- 
lighted with  them  ;  but  the  context  seems  to  shew  that  it  was  not  so  much 
the  company  or  manners  of  the  men  that  he  was  pleased  with,  as  the  hon- 
om-  done  him  by  the  king  of  Babylon  in  sending  them.  The  practice  of  ex- 
hibiting the  curiosities  and  riches  of  a  palace  to  distinguished  visitors, 
Vitringa  illustrates  by  the  parallel  case  of  Crcesus  and  Solon,  as  recorded 
by  Herodotus.  ri3J  has  been  commonly  regarded  as  identical  with  the 
ni503  of  Gen.  xxxvii.  -13,  and  the  whole  phrase  interpreted  accordingly,  as 
meaning  properly  a  house  of  spices,  and  then  by  a  natural  extension  of  its 
import,  a  depository  of  rare  and  precious  things  in  general.  The  former 
meaning  is  retained  by  Aquila  [rov  o'I-aov  riv  aaw.aarwv)  and  the  Vulgate 
{cellani  aromalum).  The  other  is  given  in  the  Targum  aud  Peshito,  and 
by  most  modern  writers.  The  Sepluagint  retains  the  Hebrew  word  {ny^c>jt)u). 
Abulsvalid  derives  it  from  OD^,  to  bite,  and  applies  it  to  provisions ;  Lorsbach, 
fi'om  a  Persian  verb  meaning  to  deposit  ;  Hitzig,  from  a  Hebrew  root  of  simi- 
lar import.  nv3  n*3  is  not  a  house  of  Jervils  or  vessels,  but  of  arms,  i.  e. 
an  arsenal,  most  probably  the  same  that  is  mentioned  in  chap.  xxii.  8.  Luther 
has  all  his  arseiwls,  but  this  would  be  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  plural. 
Lowth  more  correctly  has  tvhole  arsenal,  which  is  also  the  meaning  of  the 
common  version,  all  the  house  cf  his  armour.  The  'goodly  or  precious  oil 
is  supposed  by  Barnes  to  have  been  that  used  in  the  unction  of  kings  and 
priests,  or  perhaps  applied  to  more  ordinary  purposes  in  the  royal  house- 
hold.    Knobel  explains  iriX'OD  as  meaning  in  his  power  or  possession.     So 


yu  w.ii.ui  XXXIX.  ^Veb.  a-6. 

tbe  LXX.  (£^cuff/'a).  It  is  more  commonly  explainetl,  however,  as  a  local 
noun  denoting  rtahu  or  duniinious.  Hitzig  gives  n*^V*X  the  specific  sense 
of  store-rooms  or  treasure-chambers,  which  is  unnecessary.  Even  on  the 
usual  hypothesis,  the  3  need  not  he  transhited  ainouij  ;  hut  may  have  its 
usual  and  proper  sense  of  in. 

3.  TIa-n  came  Isaiah  the  prophet  to  the  king  Ilczekiah,  and  said  to  him, 
J\  hat  said  these  men,  anil  whence  came  they  unto  thre  ?  And  Ilczekiah  said, 
From  (I  far  country  came  they  unto  me,J'rom  lUihyltn.  The  Prophet  was 
not  sent  for  hy  the  king,  as  in  chap,  xxxvii.  ii ;  hut  he  was  no  doul>t 
sent  by  God,  and  came  in  his  official  character.  The  older  writers  seem 
to  regard  as  the  occasion  of  his  visit  the  vainglory  which  the  king  hnd 
displayed  in  his  entertainment  of  the  strangers.  The  moderns  lay  the  chief 
stress  on  the  political  negotiations  which  had  passed  between  them,  and 
which  could  not  be  regarded  by  the  Prophet,  but  with  strong  disapproba- 
tion. The  statement  in  Chronicles  is  that  God  left  hivi  to  try  him,  to  kiwir 
all  in  his  heart  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  81).  This  may  include  the  sins  of  vain 
ostentation  and  of  distrust  in  God,  shewing  it.self  in  a  longing  after  foreign 
alliances.  There  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  Ilendewerk's  assumption,  thai 
a  treaty  had  actually  been  concluded.  Gesenius  obsenes  that  Hczekiah 
answers  only  the  second  of  the  Prophet's  questions,  as  if  he  shrunk  from 
answering  the  iirst.  But  this  mode  of  replying  to  the  last  interrogation, 
when  there  is  more  thanone,  is  natural  and  common  in  cases  where  there 
can  be  no  motive  for  concealment.  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  suppose 
with  Clericus,  that  a  pnrt  of  Hezekiah's  answer  is  omitted  in  the  nairative. 
In  the  last  clause,  Cidvin  understands  the  king  as  boasting  of  the  distance 
from  which  the  embassy  had  come,  as  implying  the  extent  of  his  own  fame 
and  political  importance.  Vitringa  supposes  the  distance  to  be  mentioned 
as  an  excuse  for  his  hospitable  attentions.  Ivnobel  thinks  it  was  mtcnded 
to  disarm  Isaiah's  suspicion  of  a  league,  as  if  he  had  said,  too  distant  to 
admit  of  any  intimate  communion  or  alliance.  All  these  interpretations 
seem  to  strain  tlic  words  beyond  their  natural  obvious  import,  according  to 
which  afar  country  is  nothing  mure  than  a  familiar  designation  of  Baby- 
lon or  Babylonia. 

4.  A7ul  he  said,  What  have  they  seen  in  thy  house  f  And  Ilczekiah 
said.  All  that  is  in  my  house  have  they  seen  ;  there  is  not  a  thimj  that  I  h(tve 
not  shelved  them  in  my  treasures.  Some  of  the  later  Germans  say  that 
Hezekiah,  finding  evasion  and  concealment  impossible,  now  frankly  tells 
the  truth.  But  the  frankness  of  the  answer  here  recorded  rather  shews 
that  there  was  no  attempt  at  concealment  from  the  first.  It  was  not  as 
Calvin  well  observes,  until  the  Prophet  questioned  him,  that  Hezekiah 
became  aware  of  the  error  which  he  liad  committed.  Knobel  gratuitously 
asserts  that  the  Prophet  here  shifts  his  ground  from  finding  fault  with  what 
had  passed  in  words  to  blaming  what  had  passed  in  act,  between  the  king  and 
the  ambassadors. 

5.  And  Isaiah  said  to  Ilczikiah,  Hear  the  word  ofjchornh  of  hosts.  This 
form  of  expressicm  gives  to  what  follows  the  solemnity  and  authnrity  of  a 
divine  decree.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  xx.  10)  omits  niX3V,  which 
^'itringa  regards  as  emphatic  here,  implying  a  signal  exercise  of  divine  pro- 
vidence and  power. 

G.  Jichold  days  [are)  coming,  when  all  that  (is)  in  thy  house,  and  that 
which  thy  fathers  have  hoarded  until  this  day,  shall  be  carried  to  Babylon  ; 
there  shall  not  be  left  a  thimj  (literally  a  vwrd),  saith  Jehovah.  Jarehi 
directs  attention  tj  the  exact  correspondence  of  the  punishment  with  the 


Yeu.  7.]  ISAIAH  XXXIX.  91 

oiience.      As  the  Babylonians  liad  s.  en  all,  they  should  one  day  take  all ; 
as  nothing  had  been  withheld  from  them  now^  so  nothing  should  be  with- 
held from  them  hereafter.     The  Gei-man  interpreters  are  at  a  loss,  whether 
to  make   this  explicit  prophecy  a  proof  of  later  date,  or  to  explain  it  as  a 
sagacious  conjecture,  fomided  on  the  previous  fate  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  cm 
the  actual  relations  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy  to  Judah  and  Assyria. 
The  scale  preponderates  in  favour  of  the  latter  supposition,  notwithstand- 
ing its  absurd  assumption  of  a  mere  political  conjecture  as  to  events  which 
did  not  happen  for  a  hundred  years.     To  those  who  are  under  no  unhappy 
necessity  of  explaining  away  the  clearest  proofs  of  inspiration  and  prophe'.ic 
foresight,  this  passage  atlbrJs  a  striking  instance  of  the  gi-adual  develop- 
ment of  prophecy.      The  general  threatening  of  expatriation  had  been 
uttered   seven    hundred  years    before    by   Moses   (Lev.   xxvi.    33;    Deut. 
xxviii.   G-i-07,  XXX.  3).     Five  hundred  years   later,   Ahijah   had   dccbred 
that  Israel   should  be   rooted  up  and  scattered  U'l/ond  the  river  (1  Kings 
xiv.   lo).     Within  a  hundred  years,  they  had  been  threatened  by  Amos 
with  ciiplkitii  Ih'i/oikI  D.tiiia.^cus  (Amos  v.  21).     Isaiah  himself  had  obscurely 
intimated  a  future  connection  between  the  fortunes  of  Israel  and  Babylon 
(chap.  xiv.  1,  xxi.  10).     But  here,  for  the  tirst  time,  the  Babylonish  exile 
is  explicitly   foretold,  unless  the   similar   prediction  of  the   contemporary 
prophet  Micah  (iv.  lOj  be  considered  earlier.     The  fulfilment  of  the  pro- 
phecy began  in  the  deportation  of  Manassch  (2  Chron.  xxxiii.  11),  but  was 
described  as  something  still  prospective  by  Jeremiah   (xx.   5),  in  whoso 
days,  and  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  it  was  at  length  fully  accomplished 
(2  Chron.  xxxvi.  18).     To  the  objection,  that  a  national  calamity  of  this 
description  bears  no  proportion  to  the  fault  of  Hezckiah,  there  is  no  need 
of  any  other  answer  than  the  one  already  given   by  Yitringa,  to  wit,  that 
Hezekiah's  fault  was   not   the  cause  but  the  occasion  of  the  punishment 
which  fell  upon  the  people,  or  rather  of  its  being  so  explicitly  predicted  in 
the  case  before  us.     For,  as  Calvin  says,  the  punishment  of  Hezekiah's 
individual  iault   was  included   in   the  punishment   of  Israel  for  national 
oflences. 

7.  And  of  thy  sons  that  shall  issue  from  thee,  nhich  thou  shalt  hcffet,  shall 
they  take  awaij,  and  theif  shall  he  eunuchs  in  the  palace  if  thekiiuf  of  BainjUiu. 
The  future  form  of  the  expression  in  the  first  clause  has  respect  to  the 
fact  that  Hezekiah  had  as  yet  no  children.  (Sec  above  on  chap.xxxviii.  2). 
Hendewerk  regards  the  terms  used  as  inapplicable  to  any  but  immediate 
descendants,  in  which  case  the  prophecy  must  be  restricted  to  Manasseh 
(2  Chron.  xxxiii.  11).  But  Hitzig  and  Ivnobel  justify  the  wider  applica- 
tion of  the  terms  by  the  analogy  of  chap.  li.  2,  and  by  the  constant  use  of 
father  and  son  in  reference  to  remote  descendants  or  progenitors.  The  P 
at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  universally  admitted  to  be  partitive.  They 
shall  take  may  either  be  an  indefinite  construction,  or  agree  with  the  Bahy- 
lonians  understood.  D*DnD  is  strictly  understood  by  the  Soptuagint  (ffTct- 
bolra;),  and  the  Vulgate  (eunuchp),  but  explained  by  the  Targnm  to  mc:m 
nobles  (PSiai  absurdly  rendered  in  the  London  Polyglot,  nulriti),  i.  e.  cour- 
tiers or  household- otHcers,  an  extension  of  the  meaning  which  agrees  well 
with  the  usages  of  oriental  courts.  The  latter  explanation  is  appro%-ed  by 
Gesenius  m  his  Commentary  for  a  specified  reason.  In  his  earlier  Lexi- 
cons he  leaves  it  doubtful ;  but  in  the  Thesaiunis  he  contends  for  the  strict 
sense,  even  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  36,  as  well  as  in  the  case  before  us,  with  respect 
to  which  he  answers  his  own  argument  upon  the  other  side,  by  a  counter- 
argument of  equal  strength.     Instead  of  inp»,  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings 


92  ISAIAH  A'A'A7A'.  ^Ver.  8. 

XX.  17)  has  the  8iu<,'uliir  np\  whicli  is  equally  correct  and  regular,  iu  a  c:ise 
ol"  indefinite  construction.  The  lulfilmeut  of  this  prophecy  is  recorded  iu 
2  Kings  xxiv.  12-10  and  Dan.  i.  1-7,  and  that  so  clearly,  that  the  ueo- 
logists  are  driven  to  their  usual  supposition  of  an  interpolation,  or  of  such 
an  alteration  as  to  make  the  terras  of  the  prediction  more  determinate. 

8.  A  till  Jhzekinh  snitl  In  Isaiah,  Good  is  the  xoord  of  Jehorah  uhich  thou 
has'.  sj)()/,en.  And  he  saiil,  For  there  shall  be  peace  and  truth  in  my  days. 
The  word  yood  is  here  used,  neither  in  the  sense  of  ifracious  nor  in  that  of 
jn.st  exclusively,  but  in  that  of  riffht,  as  comprehending  both.  While  the 
king  acquiesces  in  the  threatening  prophecy  as  righteous  and  deserved,  he 
gratefully  acknowledges  the  mercy  with  which  it  is  tempered.  That  he 
looked  upon  the  woes  denounced  against  his  children  as  a  personal  mis- 
fortune of  his  own,  is  clear  from  his  regarding  the  poi^tpouement  of  the 
execution  us  a  mitigation  of  the  sentence  on  himself.  The  expression  of 
thankfulness  at  this  exemption  shews  how  true  the  narrative  is  to  nature 
and  experience.  Umbreit  has  the  good  sense  and  feeling  to  describe  it  as 
a  natural  and  child-hke  acknowledgment.  The  purer  taste  and  loftier 
morality  of  other  German  writers  can  regard  it  only  as  naiv-eyoistisch 
(Gesenius),  or  as  an  expression  of  true  oriental  cyoismus  (Hitzig).  Accord- 
ing to  these  philosophical  interpreters,  Hezekiah,  instead  of  being  thankful 
for  the  mercy  which  was  mingled  with  God's  judgments,  ought  to  have 
rejected  the  promise  of  peace  and  truth  in  his  own  days,  unless  extended 
to  his  children  also.  This  sentimental  magnanimity  may  answer  well 
enough  in  plays  and  novels,  but  is  equally  at  variance  with  human  nature 
and  the  word  of  God.  It  was  not  more  clearly  Hezekiah's  duty  to  submit 
without  a  murmur  to  God's  threatening,  than  it  was  to  accept  with  grati- 
tude the  exemption  promised  to  himself.  "  Quamvis  enim  h.TC  pa'na  aliud 
seculum  maneret,  tamen  pra?scntem  gi-atiam  amplecti  debuit  ;  et  certe 
nostro  potissimum  scculo  servire  debemus,  ejusque  pra-cipue  ratio  habenda 
est ;  futurum  uon  est  uogligendum,  sed  quod  jjneseus  est  atque  instat 
magis  otiicium  nostrum  requirit."  (Calvin.)  Nothing,  therefore,  as  the 
same  great  writer  well  says,  can  be  further  from  the  spirit  of  this  answer, 
than  that  of  the  Greek  sentence,  iVoD  Sav&irof  yuTa.  [ir/Jrju  'sxjsl,  or  the 
Latin,  viihi  morluo  omncs  mortui  sunt.  Calvin  is  also  of  opinion  that  the 
phrase,  which  thou  hast  spoken,  is  emphatic,  and  intended  to  recognise 
Isaiah  as  an  authoritative  messenger  from  God.  There  is  no  need  of  sup- 
posing that  the  second  "IDN'1  means,  he  said  in  his  heart  (Hitzig),  or  after 
Isaiah  was  gone  (Knobel),  much  less  that  it  simply  means  he  thouyht 
(Hendework).  The  obvious  sense  of  the  expression  is,  that  these  words 
were  added  to  explain  his  previous  acquiescence  in  the  divine  determina- 
tion. The  repetition  of  the  verb  he  said,  implies  a  pause  or  interval, 
however  short.  The  various  explanations  of  the  particle  *3,  as  meaning 
u-ell,  yes,  provided,  only,  yet,  O  that,  itc,  are  mere  substitutions  of  what 
the  interpreters  tliink  Hezekiah  ought  to  have  said  for  what  he  did  sa}', 
which  is  simply  this,  (/  call  it  yood)  because  there  is  to  be,  &c.  This  exact 
Bense  of  the  words  is  retained  in  the  Tiirgum  and  the  English  Version. 
The  optative  meaning  is  expressed  in  the  Septuagint  {ysviti^u  ^^j),  and  the 
Vulgate  {flat  tantum).  The  Peshito  simjjlifies  the  syntax  by  omitting  and 
he  said,  and  connecting  the  two  clauses  directly  :  yood  is  the  uord  of  the 
lj4>rd  uhich  thou  ha^t  spoken,  that  there  shall  be  peace  and  truth  in  my  days. 
But  this,  besides  its  arbitrary  mutilation  of  the  text,  impairs  the  force  of 
llexekiah's  language,  by  restricting  it  wholly  to  the  promise.  Peace  may 
bo  here  taken  in  the  wide  seuso  of  prosperity,  but  with  special  rcferouce  to 


Veb.  1.]  ISAlAll  XL.  98 

its  proper  import,  as  denoting  exemption  from  war.  Truth  is  understood 
by  Henderson  and  Barnes  in  its  modern  religious  sense  of  true  rclijion. 
Cocceius  even  restricts  it  to  the  preaching  of  the  truth.  Heudewerk  gives 
it  the  sense  of  (inodne^a,  as  the  Septuagint  does  that  of  ri//htt'0)tsnrss. 
Hitzig  supposes  it  to  mean  the  mutual  fidelity  of  men  in  their  relations  to 
each  other.  But  the  best  interpretation  seems  to  be  the  one  approved  by 
Calvin,  Vitringa,  and  (lesenius,  who  take  tlio  word  in  its  primary  etymo- 
logical sense  of  permanence,  stability,  in  which  the  ideas  of  fidelity  and 
truth  may  be  included,  as  effects  necessarily  imply  their  cause. 

From  the  foregoing  exposition  of  chapters  xxxvi.-xxxix.  it  may  safely  be 
infeiTed,  as  a  legitimate,  if  not  an  unavoidable  deduction,  that  they  fonn  a 
continuous  unbroken  narrative  by  one  and  the  same  writer ;  that  this 
writer  may  as  well  have  been  Isaiah  as  any  other  person,  (if  we  regard 
internal  evidence,)  and  can  have  been  no  otliur,  if  we  regard  thu  iiume- 
morial  tradition  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  ;  and  that  these  four  chapters,  far 
from  having  been  inserted  here  at  random  or  through  ignorance,  are  in 
thfir  proper  place,  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  Earlier  and  Later 
Prophecies,  the  threatening  in  chap,  xxxix.  G  being  really  the  theme  or 
text  of  the  long  prophetic  discourse,  with  which  the  remainder  of  the  book 
is  occupied. 

CHAPTER   XL. 

A  GLORIOUS  change  awaits  the  Church,  consisting  in  a  new  and  gracious 
niuTiifestation  of  Jehovah's  presence,  for  which  his  people  are  exhorted  to 
prepare,  vers.  1-5.  Though  one  generation  perish  after  another,  this 
promise  shall  eventually  be  fulfilled,  because  it  rests  not  upon  human  but 
divine  authority,  vers.  0-8.  Zion  may  even  now  see  him  approaching  as 
the  conqueror  of  his  enemies,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  shepherd  of  his 
people,  vers.  9-11.  The  fulfilment  of  these  pledges  is  insured  by  his  infinite 
wisdom,  his  almighty  power,  and  his  independence  both  of  individuals  and 
nations,  vers.  12-17.  How  much  more  is  he  superior  to  material  ima'^es, 
by  which  men  represent  him  or  supply  his  place,  vers.  18-25.  The  same 
power  which  supports  the  heavens  is  pledged  for  the  support  of  Israel, 
vers.  20-31. 

The  specific  application  of  this  chapter  to  the  return  from  Ba])vlon  has 
no  foundation  in  the  text  itself,  but  is  supposed  by  some  to  be'  implied 
in  the  relation  of  this  chapter  to  the  one  before  it  which  contains  a  pre- 
diction of  the  exile  ;  and  this  prediction  is  regarded  by  Hengstenber'^  and 
others  as  the  text  or  theme  of  the  prophecies  that  follow.  But  the  promise 
in  itself  considered  is  a  general  one  of  consolation,  protection,  and  chan'^o 
for  the  better,  to  be  wrought  by  the  power  and  wisdom  o(  Jehovah,  which 
are  contrasted,  first,  with  those  of  m'en,  of  nations,  and  of  nilers,  then  with 
tile  utti'r  impotence  of  idols.  That  the  ultimate  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
was  still  distant  is  implied  in  the  exhortation  to  faith  and  patience.  The 
reference  to  idolatry  proves  nothing  with  respect  to  the  date  of  the  predic- 
tion, although  more  appropriate  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah  than  of  a  prophet 
in  the  Babylonish  exile.  It  is  evidently  meant,  however,  to  condemn 
idolatry  in  general,  and  more  particularly  all  the  idolatrous  defections  of 
the  Israelites  under  the  old  economy. 

1.  Cotn fort  ye,  comfort  ye  my  people,  sailh  your  God.  Tliis  command 
is  not  addressed  specifically  to  the  priests  or  prophets,  much  less  to  the 


91  ISAIAH  XL.  [Ver.  2. 

messengers  from  Babylon  announcing  the  rcstorntion  of  the  Jews,  but  to 
any  who  might  be  Bupposcd  to  hear  the  order,  as  in  chap.  xiii.  2,  or  to  the 
people  themselves,  who  are  then  required  to  encourage  one  another,  as  in 
chiip.  XXXV.  8,  4.  The  Vulgate  oven  goes  so  far  as  to  put  vnj people  in  the 
vocative  ipojmle  mens).  The  imperative  form  of  the  expression  is  pot-tical. 
Iust^.;ui  of  declaring  his  own  purpose,  God  summons  men  to  execute  it. 
Instead  of  saying,  /  will  comfort,  he  says,  comfort  ye.  The  same  idea 
might  have  been  conveyed  by  saying,  in  the  third  j)ergon,  let  litem  con<fort 
her,  or  in  (he  passive  voice,  let  her  be  comforted.  The  possessive  pronouns 
are  emphatic,  and  suggest  that,  notwithstanding  what  they  suffered,  they 
were  still  Jehovah's  people,  he  was  still  their  God.  There  is  also  meaning 
in  the  repetition  of  the  verb  at  the  beginning.  Such  repetitions  are  not 
uufrequtiit  in  the  earher  prophecies.  (See  chaps,  xxiv.  IG,  xxvi.  3,  xxix.  1, 
xxxviii.  11,  17,  10.)  The  use  of  the  future  1PN»  for  the  preterite  1CX 
(saith)  is  peculiar  to  Isaiah.  Gesenius  cites  as  instances  in  the  other  books, 
Jer.  xlii.  2(1,  Zech.  xiii.  0,  and  Hosea  ii.  28.  IJut  in  the  first  and  second 
cases,  the  future  has  its  proper  sense,  and  not  that  of  the  present;  while  in 
the  third,  the  Hebrew  word  is  not  ION*  but  CN?.  At  the  same  time,  he 
omits  the  only  real  instance  not  in  Isaiah,  viz.  Ps.  xii.  0.  Calvin  insists 
upon  the  strict  translation  of  the  futui-e  (dicct),  as  implyhig  that  the  order 
to  console  the  people  was  not  to  be  actually  given  till  a  later  period,  and 
is  only  mentioned  here  by  anticipation.  But  even  if  it  be  explained  as  at 
present,  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this  form  of  expression  is  not  only 
peculiar  to  Isaiah,  but  common  to  both  parts  of  the  book.  (See  chap.  i. 
11,  18,  xxxiii.  10.)  The  prefator}*  exhortation  in  this  verse  affords 
a  key  to  the  whole  prophecy,  as  being  consolatory  in  its  tone  and  pur- 
pose. There  is  evident  allusion  to  the  threatening  in  chap,  xxxix.  7. 
(See  previous  page.)  Having  there  predicted  the  captivity  in  Bal)ylon, 
as  one  of  the  successive  strokes,  by  which  the  fall  of  Israel  as  a 
nation,  and  the  total  loss  of  its  peculiar  privileges,  should  be  brought 
about,  the  Prophet  is  now  sent  to  assure  the  spiritual  Israel,  the  true 
people  of  Jehovah,  that  although  the  Jewish  nation  should  soon  cease  to 
be  externally  identified  with  the  Church,  the  Church  itself  should  not  only 
continue  to  exist,  but  in  a  far  more  glorious  state  than  ever.  This  is  the 
"  people"  here  meant,  and  this  the  *'  comfort"  whei'ewith  they  were  to  be 
comforted. 

2.  Speak  to  (or  accordinri  to)  the  heart  of  Jerusalem,  ami  cry  to  her  that 
her  warfare  is  accomjilitihed,  that  her  iiiitjuity  is  pardoned,  that  she  hath 
re<.  ivedfrovi  the  hand  (f  Jehovah  douhle  for  all  her  sins.  By  speaking  to 
the  heart,  we  are  to  understand  speaking  so  as  to  alVcct  the  heart  or  feel- 
ings, and  also  in  accordance  with  the  heart  or  wishes,  t.  e.  what  the  person 
addressed  desires  or  needs  to  hear.  Jerusalem  is  here  put  for  the  Church 
or  chosen  people,  whose  metropolis  it  was,  and  for  whose  sake  the  place 
itself  was  precious  in  the  sight  of  God.  Tho.se  who  refer  the  passage  to 
the  Babylonish  exile  are  under  the  necessity  of  assuming  (with  Rosen- 
niiiiler)  that  the  consolation  was  addressed  to  those  left  behind  in  Judah, 
(.r  (with  Gesenius)  that  Jerusalem  means  its  inhabitants  in  exile.  War- 
fare includes  the  two  ideas  of  appointed  time  and  hard  service,  in  which 
simse  the  verb  and  noun  are  both  applied  to  the  routine  of  sacerdotal  func- 
tions (Num.  iv.  2H,  viii.  2-1,  25),  but  here  still  more  expressly  to  the  old 
dispensation,  os  a  period  of  restriction  and  constraint.  The  next  phrase 
strictly  means,  her  initjuity  is  accepted,  i.e.  an  atonement  for  it,  or  the 
punishment  already  sull'ered  is  accepted  as  sufficient,  not  in  strict  justice, 


Ver.  3,  4.]  ISAIAH  XL.  95 

but  in  reference  to  (rod's  gracious  purpose.  The  same  idea  is  supposed  by 
some  to  be  expressed  in  the  last  clause,  whore  Dv?3  {douhle)  is  not  used 
mathematically  to  denote  proportion,  but  poetically  to  denote  abundance, 
like  the  equivalent  expresssion  ^.^^'P  in  chap.  Ixi.  7,  Job  xlii.  10,  Zech.  ix. 
12.  The  sense  will  then  be  that  she  has  been  punished  abundantly,  not 
more  than  she  deserved,  yet  enough  to  answer  the  design  of  punishment. 
But  as  giving  or  receiving  double,  in  all  the  other  cases  cited,  has  respect, 
not  to  punishment,  but  to  favour  after  sutiering,  so  this  clause  may  be  un- 
derstood to  mean,  that  she  has  now  received  (or  is  receiving)  double  favours, 
notwithstanding  all  her  sins.  The  3  has  then  the  same  sense  as  in  chaps. 
V.  25,  ix.  11,  16,  20,  X.  4.  Either  of  these  explanations  makes  it  unnoces- 
sar}'^  to  give  sin  the  rare  and  doubtful  sense  of  punishment.  The  verbs  are 
prceterila  jjrophctica,  but  for  that  very  reason  should  not  be  exchanged  for 
futures,  as  we  have  no  right  to  depart  without  necessity  from  the  descrip- 
tive form  in  which  it  pleased  the  Holy  Ghost  to  clothe  this  prophecy.  The 
continuance  of  the  ceremonial  system,  and  the  hardships  of  the  old  dispen- 
sation, are  here  and  elsewhere  represented  as  chastisements  due  to  the  de- 
fections of  the  chosen  people,  notwithstanding  which  they  should  continue 
to  exist,  and  in  a  far  more  glorious  character,  not  as  a  national  Church, 
but  as  a  spiritual  Church,  set  free  from  ritual  and  local  fetters. 

3.  A  voice  crying — in  the  loilderness — clear  the  way  of  Jehovah — malce 
straight  (or  level)  in  the  desert  a  highway  for  our  God.  The  Septuagint 
version,  retained  in  the  New  Testament,  is  (puvri  (Souvro;,  which  amounts  to 
the  same  thing.  Both  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  the  words  in  the 
witderyiess  may  be  connected  either  with  what  follows  or  with  what  pre- 
cedes ;  but  the  usual  division  is  more  natural,  and  the  other  has  been 
insisted  upon  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  the  verse  inapplicable  to 
John  the  Baptist,  who  came  preaching  in  a  wilderness,  and  to  whom  the 
words  are  applied  expressly  in  Mat.  iii.  3 ;  Mark  i.  8 ;  Luke  iii.  4,  as  the 
herald  of  the  new  dispensation.  Those  who  deny  the  inspiration  of  the 
Prophet  are  compelled  to  reject  this  as  a  mere  accommodation,  and  apply 
the  verse  exclusively  to  the  return  from  Babylon,  of  which  there  is  no  men- 
tion in  the  text  or  context.  It  is  said  indeed  that  God  is  here  represented  as 
marching  at  the  head  of  his  returning  people.  But  in  all  the  cases  which 
Lowth  cites  as  parallel,  there  is  express  allusion  to  the  exodus  from  Egj'pt. 
Here,  on  the  contrary,  the  only  image  presented  is  that  of  God  returning 
to  Jerusalem,  revisiting  his  people,  as  he  did  in  every  signal  manifestation 
of  his  presence,  but  above  all  at  the  advent  of  Messiah,  and  the  opening  of 
the  new  dispensation.  The  verb  rendered  prepare  denotes  a  particular 
kind  of  preparation,  viz.  the  removal  of  obstructions,  as  appears  from  Gen. 
xxiv.  31 ;  Lev.  xiv.  30,  and  may  therefore  be  expressed  by  clear  in  English. 
The  parallel  verb  means  rectify  or  make  straight,  either  in  reference  to 
obliquity  of  course  or  to  unevenuess  of  surface,  most  probably  the  latter,  in 
which  case  it  may  be  expressed  by  level.  To  a  general  term  meaning  toay 
or  path  is  added  a  specific  one,  denoting  an  artificial  causeway,  raised 
above  the  surface  of  the  earth.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  (with  Lowth) 
that  the  Prophet  here  alludes  to  any  particular  usage  of  the  oriental  sove- 
reigns, or  (with  Grotius)  that  the  order  of  the  first  and  second  verses  is 
continued  (let  there  he  a  voice  crying).  The  Prophet  is  describing  what  ho 
actually  hears — a  voice  crying  ! — or  as  Ewald  boldly  paraphrases  the  ex- 
pression— Hark  !  one  cries. 

4.  Every  valley  shall  be  raised,  atid  every  -mountain  and  hill  brought  low, 
and  the  uneven  shall  become  level,  and  the  ridges  a  plain.    This  may  be  con- 


9G  •         ISAIAH  XL.  |Ver.  5,  6. 

fjidered  an  an  explanation  of  the  manner  In  which  the  way  of  the  Lord  was 
to  be  prepared.  Grotins  supposes  the  command  at  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter  to  be  still  continued  {let  every  valley,  kc),  and  the  latest  German 
writers  give  the  same  construction  of  this  verse,  although  thoy  make  a  new 
comninnd  begin  in  the  one  preceding.  The  form  of  the  following  verb 
(n^'nv\  though  not  incompatible  with  this  explanation,  rather  favours  the 
strict  iutei-pretation  of  the  future,  which  is  of  course,  on  general  principles, 
to  bo  preferred.  The  common  version  [eauilted)  seems  to  imply  that  the 
valleys  and  moimtains  were  to  exchange  places  ;  but  this  would  not  facili- 
tate the  passing,  which  requires  that  both  should  be  reduced  to  a  common 

level. The  translation  crooked  is  retained  and  defended  by  some  modern 

writers,  on  the  ground  that  the  parallel  expression  requires  it;  but  as  iVJ'^p 
iiKiy  (It  note  not  only  lineal  but  superficial  rectitude,  so  3pV»  "s  its  opposite, 
iiiiiv  naturally  signify  unevenness  of  surface,  which  is  more  appropriate  in 
Ibis  eonnection  than  obliquity  or  irregularity  of  course.  D*P?7.  according 
to  its  etvmologv-,  denotes  gorges  or  mvines,  or  rather  dithcult  passes  ;  but 
in  this  case  it  seems  to  be  the  opposite  of  flat  or  level  ground,  and  may 
therefore  be  expressed  by  ridges.  The  application  of  these  several  terms 
to  difl'erent  moral  or  spiritual  objects,  such  as  various  classes  in  society  or 
nations  of  the  earth,  rests  upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  features  of  a 
portrait  or  the  figures  in  a  landscape  are  to  be  considered  one  by  one,  and 
not  in  their  mutual  relations,  as  composing  a  whole  picture.  (Compare  the 
conniient  on  chap.  v.  B,  vol.  i.  p.  129).  The  whole  inipression^here  intended 
to  be  made  is  that  of  a  way  open«d  through  a  wilderness  by  levelling  the 
"round  and  the  removal  of  obstructions,  as  a  natural  image  for  the  removal 
of  the  hindrances  to  God's  revisiting  his  people. 

r».  And  the  (jUny  of  JeUovoh  shall  he  revealed,  and  all  jlesh  shall  see  (it) 
tmirlher,  for  the  mouth  of  Jehorak  speaks  (or  hath  spoken).  The  subjunct- 
ive construction  of  the  first  clause  by  Junius  and  Tremellius  {iit  rerelelur) 
is  adopted  bv  Ilitzig  and  Ewald,  but  without  necessity.  The  idea  seems 
to  be  that  as  soon  as  the  way  is  opened,  the  Lord  will  shew  himself. 
I^n!  mav  express  either  coincidence  of  time  {at  once),  or  totality  altoyelher), 
nuire  probably  the  latter.  Ewald  needlessly  reads  ""iVV'-i  which  he  supposes 
to  be  implied  in  the  Septuagint  version  (ro  ffwr^g/o>  roS  ^soD),  retained  by 
Luke  (iii.  C).  But  this  only  shews  that  salration  was  included  in  the  ylonj 
which  should  be  revealed.  Gesenius  follows  Luther  in  making  the  last 
clause  express  the  thing  to  be  seen  {shall  see  that  the  month  of  Jehovah  hath 
spoken) ;  but  this  construction  is  precluded  by  the  fact  that  this  is  the  only 
case  in  which  the  sense  thus  put  upon  the  formula  is  even  possible ;  in  all 
others  the  meaning  of  the  clause  not  only  may  but  must  be,  /or  {because) 
the  month  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken,  as  a  reason  why  the  declaration  should 
be  credited.  (See  chap.  i.  2,  20,  xxii.  25,  Iviii.  11  ;  Jer.  xiii.  1')  ;  Joel 
iv.  8;  Obad.  i.  18.)  To  this,  the  only  tenable  construction,  all  the  later 
German  writers  have  returned.  To  see  God's  glory,  is  a  common  expres- 
sion for  recognising  his  presence  and  agency  in  any  event.  (See  Exod. 
xvi.  7;  Isa.  xxxv.  2,  Ixvi.  18).  The  specific  reference  of  this  verse  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile  is  not  only  gratuitous  but  inconsistt^nt 
with  the  strength  and  comprehensiveness  of  its  expressions.  The  simple 
meaning  is.  that  when  the  way  should  bo  prepared,  the  glory  of  God  would 
be  universally  displayed ;  a  promise  too  extensive  to  be  fully  verified  in  that 
event  or  period  of  history. 

(5.  A  voice  aayiny,  ( 'ry  !    And  he  said  (or  says).  What  shall  T  cry?    All 
Jleth  is  grass,  and  all  its  favour  like  a  floxcer  of  the  field  !     Hero,  as  in 


Ver.  G.J  ISAIAH  XL.  97 

ver,  3,  the  participle  is  construed  in  the  genitive  hy  the  Soptuagiut  (fu^fi 
yJ.yovTo;),  and  the  Vulgate  (vox  dicoitis)  ;  but  the  simplest  coustructiou 
makes  it  agree  with  voice  as  an  adjective.  That  two  distinct  speakers  are 
here  introduced,  seems  to  be  granted  by  all  interpi-eters,  excepting  Junius 
and  Tremellius,  who  refer  "ipX  and  "lOi^  to  the  same  subject,  and  exclude 
the  interrogation  altogether.  A  voice  aaya,  C'nj,  and  it  also  sdya^or  tells  me) 
what  I  shall  cry.  Cocceius  supplies  is  heard  at  the  beginning.  Ewald 
adopts  the  same  form  of  expression  in  ver.  3.  Hark!  one  says,  Cry.  The 
force  and  beauty  of  the  verse  are  much  impaired  by  any  version  which  does 
not  represent  the  writer  as  actually  hearing  what  he  thus  describes.  The 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate  have  and  I  said,  either  because  they  read  1P>*1, 
which  is  found  in  one  or  two  manuscripts,  or  because  they  understood  the 
form  used  in  the  common  text  as  certainly  referring  to  the  Prophet  himself. 
August!  supplies  (he  herald  says,  which  is  unnecessary.  There  is  a  pleasing 
mystery,  as  Hitzig  well  observes,  in  the  dialogue  of  these  anonymous  voices, 
which  is  dispelled  by  undertaking  to  determine  too  precisely  who  the  speakers 
are.  All  that  the  words  necessarily  convey  is,  that  one  voice  speaks  and 
another  voice  answers.  Interpreters  are  universally  agreed  that  the  last 
clause  contains  the  words  which  the  second  speaker  is  required  to  utter.  It 
is  possible,  however,  to  connect  these  words  immediately  with  what 
precedes,  and  understand  them  as  presenting  an  objection  to  the  required 
proclamation.  ]\'hat  shall  (or  can)  I  cry,  (since)  all  jlesh  is  yrass,  &c.  The 
advantages  of  this  construction  are,  that  it  assumes  no  change  of  speaker 
where  none  is  intimated  in  the  text,  and  that  it  does  away  with  an  alleged 
tautology,  as  will  be  seen  below.  According  to  the  usual  construction,  we 
are  to  supply  before  the  last  clause,  and  the  first  voice  said  again  (or 
ansicered).  Cry  as  follows:  All  Jlesh,  &c.  The  last  phrase  is  here  used,  not 
in  its  widest  sense,  as  comprehending  the  whole  animal  world  (Gen.  vi.  7, 
13,  17),  but  in  its  more  restricted  application  to  mankind,  of  which  some 
examples  may  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  (John  xvii.  2  ;  Rom.  iii.  20). 
The  comparison  of  human  frailty  to  grass  is  common  in  the  Scriptiu'es. 
(See  cliaps.  xxxvii.  27,  h.  12;  Ps.  ciii.  15,  16;  James  i.  10,  11.)  J.  D. 
Michaelis  supposes  an  allusion,  in  the  last  clause,  to  the  sudden  blasting  of 
oriental  flowers  by  the  burning  east  wind.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate 
give  1"^pn  the  sense  of  ylory,  which  is  retained  by  Peter  (1  Pet.  i.  21, 
25.).^  From  this  Grotius,  Houbigant,  and  others  infer  that  the  original 
reading  was  nin,  Gesenius  rejects  this  as  altogether  arbitrary,  but  with 
as  little  ground  assumes  that  "I?n,  in  this  one  place,  is  S}-nonymous  with 
ID,  when  used  (like  the  Enghsh  grace  and  favour)  in  the  sense  of  beauty. 
Hendewerk  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  %a^/i,  in  Luke  ii.  40,  has  an 
cesthetic  sense.  To  assume  a  new  sense  of  Tpn  in  this  one  case  is  a  eola- 
tion of  the  soundest  principles  of  lexicography,  and  instead  of  letting  the 
writer  express  his  own  ideas,  forces  upon  him  what  the  commentator 
thinks  he  might  have  said  or  should  have  said.  There  may  be  cases  where 
a  word  must  be  supposed  to  have  a  peculiar  sense  in  some  one  place  ;  but 
such  assumptions  can  be  justified  by  nothing  but  extreme  necessity,  and 
that  no  such  necessity  exists  in  this  case  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  the 
usual  explanation  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense.  The  contrast  is  then 
between  the  short-lived  and  precarious  favour  of  man,  and  the  infallible 
promise  of  God.  The  quotation  in  Peter  confirms  the  supposition,  here 
suggested  by  the  context,  that  the  words  have  reference  to  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel,  or  the  introduction  of  the  new  dispensation. 

VOL.  II.  G 


98  ISAIAU  XL.  [Veb.  7,  8. 

7.  Dried  is  the  (jrass,  faded  the  Jlotver ;  for  the  breath  of  Jehovah  has 
blown  upon  it.  Surdij  the  people  is  grass.  The  present  form  usually 
given  to  the  verbs  conveys  the  sense  correctly  as  a  general  proposition,  but 
not  in  its  original  shape  as  a  description  of  what  has  actually  happened, 
and  may  be  expected  to  occur  again. — The  translation  when  (instead  of 
for),  preferred  by  Geseuius  and  some  older  writers,  is  only  admissible 
because  it  is  a  needless  deviation  from  the  usual  meaning  of  the  particle, 
which  yields  a  perfectly  good  sense  in  this  connection. — If  n-ll  does  not 
here  denote  a  divine  agent,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  ligurative 
form  of  the  whole  sentence,  it  should  b  taken  in  its  primary  sense  of 
bnath,  not  in  the  intermediate  one  of  'u  tid ;  although  this,  as  Geseuius 
suggests,  may  be  what  the  figure  was  inte  ded  to  express,  the  figure  itself 
is  that  of  a  person  breuthivg  on  the  grass  an  flower,  and  causing  them  to 
wither.  It  is  strange  that  Lowth  should  huve  overlooked  this  natural  and 
striking  image,  to  adopt  the  unpoetical  and  frigid  notion,  that  "  a  wind  of 
Jehovah  is  a  Hebraism,  meaning  no  more  than  a  strong  wind." — 1^^^,  which 
properly  means  surely,  verily,  is  here  equivalent  to  an  atfirmative  particle, 
yea  or  yes,  and  is  so  explained  by  Luther, — The  treatment  which  this  last 
clause  has  experienced  affords  an  instructive  illustration  of  the  real  value  of 
the  "higher  criticism."  Kopj)e,  the  father  of  this  modern  art  or  science, 
rejects  the  clause  as  spurious,  because  it  violates  the  parallelism.  He  is  fol- 
lowed, with  some  hesitation,  by  Geseuius,  who  assigns,  as  additional  reasons, 
that  the  sense  is  waieiy  and  incoherent,  and  that  the  clause  is  wanting  in  the 
Septuagint,  although  he  does  not  hesitate  to  retain  the  first  clause,  which  is 
also  omitted  in  that  ancient  Version.  Hitzig  grants  that  this  omission  may 
have  been  a  mere  mistake  or  inadvertence,  but  still  rejects  the  clause,  upon 
the  ground,  that  it  contains  a  false  explanation  of  what  goes  before,  because 
DV'7.  when  absolutely  used,  must  mean  the  Jews,  whereas  the  reference  in 
this  whole  context  is  to  the  Gentiles;  as  if  the  latter  allegation  did  not 
utterly  subvert  the  other,  by  determining  in  what  sense  Q^"?  must  here  be 
taken.  Instead  of  arguing  that,  because  the  Gentiles  are  referred  to  in  the 
context,  therefore  they  nmst  be  meant  here  likewise,  he  assumes  that  they 
are  not  meant  here,  and  then  pronounces  the  clause  inconsistent  with  the 
context.  The  clause  is  retained  as  genuine  by  all  the  German  writers  since 
Hitzig.  Another  curious  instance  of  the  confidence  with  which  the  higher 
critics  can  oflirm  contradictory  propositions,  is  the  fact  that  while  Hitzig 
says  that  QV"?  »'««<  mean  Israel,  Gesenius  quietly  assumes  that  it  must 
mean  the  Babylonians. 

8.  Dried  ia  the  grasa,  faded  the  jiower,  and  the  word  of  our  God  shall 
stand  for  ever.  The  comparatively  rare  use  of  adversative  particles  in 
Hebrew  is  apparent  from  this  verse,  in  which  the  relation  of  the  clauses  can 
be  fully  expressed  in  English  only  by  means  of  the  word  hut. — Kimchi 
explains  tvord  to  mean  the  word  of  prophecy,  while  others  give  it  the 
specific  sense  of  promise,  and  others  understand  it  as  denoting  the  gospel, 
on  the  authority  of  1  Peter  i.  25.  All  these  explanations  can  be  reconciled 
by  suflering  the  Prophet  to  express  his  own  ideas,  without  any  adventitious 
limitation,  and  admitting,  as  the  only  sure  conclusion,  that  by  wvrd  he 
means  neither  promise,  nor  prophecy,  nor  gospi-l  merely,  but  evei'y  word 
that  jirocecdeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God  (Dent.  viii.  3;  Mat.  iv.  4).  There 
is  a  tacit  antithesis  between  the  word  of  God  and  man  ;  what  man  says  is 
uncertain  and  precarious,  what  God  says  caimot  fail.  Thus  understood,  it 
includes  prediction,  precept,  promise,  and  the  olTer  of  salvation ;  and 
although  the  latter  is  not  meant  exclusively,  the  apostle  makes  a  perfectly 


Ver.  9.]  ISAIAH  XL.  99 

coiTcc.t  and  most  important  application  of  the  verse  when,  after  quoting  it, 
be  adds,  aud  this  in  the  ivord  xohich  is  preached  {ilayyiXK^dh)  unto  you,  that 
is  to  say,  this  prophetic  declaration  is  emphatically  true  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ.  To  stand  for  ever  is  a  common  Hebrew  phrase  for  perpetuity, 
security,  and  sure  fulfilment.  The  expression  our  God  contains,  as  usual, 
a  reference  to  the  covenant  relation  between  God  and  his  people.  Even 
according  to  the  usual  arrangement  and  construction  of  these  verses,  the 
emphatic  repetition  in  vers.  7  and  8  can  only  be  thought  xoaterrj  hj  critics 
of  extreme  refinement.  It  is  possible,  however,  to  avoid  the  appearance  of 
tautology'  by  means  of  an  ax*rangemeiit  which  has  been  already  hinted  at  as 
possible,  although  it  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  any  of  the  inter- 
preters. The  proposition  is  to  give  the  passage  a  dramatic  form,  by  mak- 
ing the  last  clause  of  ver.  G  and  the  whole  of  ver.  7  a  continuation  of  the 
words  of  the  second  voice,  and  then  regarding  ver.  8  as  a  rejoinder  by  the 
first  voice.  The  whole  may  then  be  paraphrased  as  follows.  A  voice 
says,  "Cry!"  And  (another  voice)  says,  "What  shall  I  cry?"  (/.  e. 
to  what  purpose  can  I  cry,  or  utter  promises  like  those  recorded  in  vers. 
1—5),  since  all  flesh  is  grass,  &c. ;  the  grass  withereth,  kc. ;  surely  the 
people  is  gi-ass  (and  cannot  be  expected  to  witness  the  fulfilment  of  these 
promises).  But  the  first  voice  says  again  :  "  The  grass  does  wither,  and 
the  flower  does  fiide  ;  but  these  events  depend  not  on  the  life  of  man,  but 
on  the  word  of  God,  and  the  word  of  God  shall  stand  for  ever."  There 
are  no  doubt  some  objections  to  this  exegetical  hypothesis,  especially  its 
somewhat  artificial  character;  and  therefore  it  has  not  been  introduced  into 
the  text,  but  is  simply  thrown  out  here,  as  a  possible  alternative,  to  those 
who  are  not  satisfied  with  the  more  obvious  and  usual  construction  of  the 
passage. 

9.  Upon  a  hir/h  mountain  get  thee  up,  hrincjer  of  good  news,  Zion  !  Raise 
with  strength  thij  voice,  bringer  oj  good  news,  Jerusalem !  Raise  (it),  fear 
not,  say  to  the  towns  of  Jndah,  Lo,  your  God!  The  reflexive  form  get  thee 
vp,  though  not  a  literal  translation,  is  an  idiomatic  equivalent  to  the 
Hebrew  phrase  (ascend  for  thee  or  for  thy>!elf).  Some  suppose  an  allusion 
to  the  practice  of  addressing  large  assemblies  from  the  summit  or  acclivity 
of  hills.  (See  Judges  ix.  7  ;  Deut.  xxvii.  12  ;  Mat.  v.  1.)  J.  D.  IMichaolis 
compares  the  ancient  practice  of  transmitting  news  by  shouting  from  one 
hill-top  to  another,  as  described  by  Caesar  (Bell.  Gall.  vii.  3).  Celeriter 
ad  omnes  GalVuc  civitates  fama  perfertur  ;  nam  ubi  major  atque  illudrior 
incidit  res,  clamore  peragros  regionesque  significant ;  hunc alii deinceps  excipiunt 
et  proximis  tradunt.  The  essential  idea  is  that  of  local  elevation  as  extending 
the  diftusion  of  the  sound. — There  are  two  constructions  of  P'V  r>^"?i'2p  and 
the  parallel  expression.  The  first  supposes  the  words  to  be  in  regimen,  the 
other  in  apposition.  According  to  the  former,  which  is  given  in  the 
Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Vulgate,  and  retained  by  Grotius,  Lowth,  Gese- 
nius,  and  others,  the  person  addressed  is  the  bearer  of  good  tidings  to 
Zion  and  Jerusalem  (compare  chap.  lii.  7  ;  Nah.  ii.  1).  The  feminine  form 
is  explained  by  Grotius  as  an  enallage  for  the  masculine,  like  ri^DP*  i^ieacher^ 
an  idiom,  as  Dathe  thinks,  peculiar  to  oflicial  titles.  Gesenius  regards  it 
as  an  instance  of  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  feminine  singular  as  a  collective, 
like  ri3^^  for  D*??i'*  (Micah  i.  11,  12),  and  agrees  with  the  Targum  in  mak- 
ing the  prophets  the  object  of  address.  But  this  whole  theory  of  collective 
feminines  is  so  unnatural,  and  so  imperfectly  sustained  by  the  cases  which 
Gesenius  cites  (Lehrg.  p.  -477  ;  Heb.  Gr.  §  105,  2  c),  that  if  the  construc- 
tion now  in  question  be  adopted,  it  is  better  to  revert  to  the  hj-pothesis  of 


100  ISAIAH  XL.  [Ver.  10. 

LowtL  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  the  Prophet  alludes  to  the  praclicc  of 
cekbratin^  victories  by  the  sonf^s  of  women.  (See  Exod.  xv.  20,  21  ; 
Judges  xi.  34  :  1  Sum.  xviii.  0,  7.)  J3ut  althoUf^'h  this  explanation  is 
decidedly  more  natural  than  that  of  Grotius  and  Gesenius,  it  is  perhaps 
less  so  than  the  ancient  one  contained  in  the  Peshitu  and  the  three  Greek 
versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  accordin;^  to  which  Zion 
or  Jerusalem  herself  is  represented  as  the  bearer  of  good  tidinj^s  to  the 
towns  of  Judah.  This  construction  is  further  recommended  by  the  beautiful 
personification  which  it  introduces  of  the  Holy  City  as  the  seat  of  the  true 
religion  and  the  centre  of  the  church.  The  otVu-e  here  ascribed  to  it  is  the 
same  that  is  recognised  in  chap.  ii.  3  :  the  law  nhaU  go  forth  from  Zim, 
and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.  Not  only  in  the  restoration 
from  captivity,  or  in  the  personal  advent  of  the  Saviour,  but  in  every 
instance  of  the  Lord's  return  to  his  forsaken  people,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
church  to  communicate  as  well  as  to  receive  the  joyful  tidii'gs.  The 
explanation  of  Jerusalem  and  Zion  as  meaning  their  inhabitants  among  the 
captivity  is  still  mure  arbitrary  here  than  in  ver.  2,  because  no  reason  can 
be  given  why  the  exiles  from  the  Holy  City  should  be  called  upon  to  act  as 
heralds  to  the  others,  whereas  there  is  a  beautiful  poetical  propriety  in 
giving  that  office  to  the  Holy  City  itself.  Let  the  reader  carefully  observe 
how  many  exegetical  embarrassments  arise  from  the  attempt  to  confine  the 
application  of  the  passage  to  the  period  of  the  exile,  or  to  any  other  not 
particularly  indicated.  The  exhortation,  fear  vot,  does  not  imply  that 
there  was  danger  in  making  the  announcement,  but  that  there  might  be 
doubt  and  hesitation  as  to  its  fulfdment.  Barnes  thinks  it  necessary  to 
prevent  abuse  of  this  text  by  affirming  that  it  "  will  not  justify  boisterous 
preaching,  or  a  loud  and  unnatural  tone  of  voice,  alike  offensive  to  good 
taste,  injurious  to  health,  and  destructive  of  the  life  of  the  preacher."  He 
also  infers  from  it  that  "  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  should  bo  delivered 
in  an  animated  and  ardent  manner;  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  in 
a  tone  serious,  solemn,  subdued,  awful." 

10.  Lo,  the  Lord  Jehovah  will  come  (or  is  coming)  in  {the  person  of)a 
strong  one,  and  liis  arm  (is)  ndiiigfur  liiin.  L<>,  his  hire  is  with  him  and 
his  wages  before  liim.  The  double  nsn  represents  the  object  as  already 
appearing  or  in  sight.  Of  the  phrase  ptn?  there  are  several  interpretations. 
All  the  ancient  versions  make  it  mean  with  strength  ;  but  this  abstract  sense 
of  the  adjective  is  not  sustained  by  usage,  and  the  same  objection  lies,  with 
still  greater  force,  against  Ewald's  version,  in  victory.  Abeu  Ezra  and 
Kimchi  supply  "1*  [with  a  strong  hand);  but  wherever  the  entire  phrase 
occurs,  the  noun  is  construed  as  a  feminine.  Jarchi  makes  it  mean  against 
th-  strong  one,  which  Vitringa  adopts  and  applies  the  phrase  to  Satan.  But 
usage  requires  that  N13,  when  it  has  this  sense,  should  be  construed  with 
its  object,  cither  directly,  or  by  means  of  the  prepositions  7y,  ?^*,  or  ?. 
De  Dieu  regards  the  3  as  pleonastic  or  a  leth  c.sstiititr,  corresponding  to  the 
French  construction  en  mi,  in  (the  character  or  person  of)  a  king.  The 
existence  of  this  idiom  in  Hebrew  is  questioned  by  some  eminent  gram- 
marians, and  is  at  best  so  unusual  that  it  should  not  bo  assumed  without 
necessity.  (See  the  comment  on  chap.  xxvi.  4,  vol.  i.  p.  421.)  The  choice, 
however,  seems  tt)  lie  between  this  and  the  construction  which  explains  the 
words  to  mean  that  ho  will  come  with  a  strong  one ;  as  in  chap,  xxviii.  2, 
the  Lord  is  said  to  have  a  strong  aiid  mighty  one,  who  should  cast  the  crown 
of  Ephraim  to  the  ground  with  his  hand.  What  God  is  said  to  do  himself 
in  one  case,  be  is  represented  in  the  other  as  accomplishing  by  means  of  a 


Ver.  lO.J  ISAIAll  XL.  101 

powerful  instrument  or  agent,  which,  however,  is  defined  no  further.  The 
essentiiil  meaning,  common  to  the  two  constructions,  is,  that  Jehovah  was 
about  to  make  a  special  exhibition  of  his  power. — The  participle  ruling,  in 
the  next  clause,  is  expressive  of  continuous  action.  The  y>  cannot  refer  to 
arm,  which  Gesenius  suggests  as  a  possible  construction,  because  W^\t 
although  sometimes  masculine,  is  here  expressly  construed  as  a  feminine. 
The  antecedent  of  the  pronoun  must  be  either  Jehovah,  or  the  Strong  One, 
according  to  the  sense  in  which  ptn?  is  taken,  as  descriptive  of  God  himself, 
or  of  his  instrument.  Those  who  understand  that  phrase  to  mean  against 
the  strong  one,  give  the  next  the  sense  of  ruling  over  him.  But  although 
/  strictly  denotes  relation  in  general  {as  to,  tiith  respect  to),  and  admits  of 
various  equivalents  in  English,  it  is  never  elsewhere  used  in  this  sense  after 
t'K'D,  to  rule,  which,  ^ith  scarcely  an  exception,  is  followed  by  the  preposition 
3.  The  true  sense  of  17  is  probably  the  obvious  one  for  him,  and  the  clause 
is  a  poetical  description  of  the  arm  as  acting  independently  of  its  possessor, 
and  as  it  were  in  his  behalf. — Here,  as  in  Lev.  xix.  13,  Ps.  cix.  20,  Isa. 
xHx.  4,  n'?y3,  irnrh,  is  put  for  its  effect,  reward,  or  product.  There  is  no  need 
of  assuming  with  Kimchi,  an  ellipsis  of  1?"P*  before  it.  The  word  itself,  as 
Aben  Ezra  well  explains  it,  is  equivalent  in  meaning  to  W^^  '^?^. — J.  T>. 
Michaelis  considers  it  as  doubtful  whether  the  person  here  referred  to  is 
described  as  dispensing  or  receiving  a  reward,  since  in  either  case  it  would 
be  his.  The  former  explanation  is  preferred  by  most  interpreters,  some  of 
whom  suppose^i  a  specific  allusion  to  the  customary  distribution  of  prizes  by 
commanders  after  nctory.  Upon  this  general  supposition,  Lowth  explains 
the  phrase  before  him,  as  referring  to  the  act  of  stretching  forth  the  hand, 
or  holding  out  the  thing  to  be  bestowed.  Those  who  restrict  the  passage  to 
the  Babylonish  exiles,  for  the  most  part  understand  this  clause  as  promising 
a  recompeuce  to  such  of  the  captives  as  had  patiently  endured  God's  will 
and  believed  his  promises.  Knobel,  however,  understands  it  as_ referring  to 
the  redeemed  people  as  being  themselves  the  recompence  of  their  deliverer ; 
and  Henderson  adopts  the  same  construction,  but  applies  it  to  the  recom- 
pence earned  by  the  Messiah.  This  explanation  is  favoured  by  what  follows 
in  the  next  verse,  where  Jehovah  or  his  Strong  One  is  described  as  a  shep- 
herd. The  two  verses  may  be  readily  connected,  without  any  change  of 
figure,  by  supposing  that  the  lost  sheep  which  he  has  recovered  are  the 
recompence  referred  to  in  the  verse  before  us.  Thus  understood,  the  passage 
may  have  furnished  the  occasion  and  the  basis  of  our  Saviour's  beautiful 
description  of  himself  as  the  true  shepherd,  who  lays  down  his  life  for  the 
sheep,  as  well  as  of  the  figure  dra^ra  from  the  recovery  of  a  lost  sheep  to 
illustrate  the  rejoicing  in  heaven  over  one  repentant  sinner.  But  a  still 
more  decisive  argument  in  favour  of  this  interpretation  is  the  fact,  that  in 
every  case  without  exception  where  ist*'  find  n?y?)  have  the  same  sense  as 
here,  the  hire  or  wages  of  a  person  is  the  hire  or  wages  paid  to  him,  and 
not  that  paid  by  him.  To  give  it  the  latter  meaning  in  this  one  case,  there- 
fore, would  be  to  violate  a  usage,  not  merely  general,  but  uniform  ;  and  such 
a  violation  could  be  justified  only  by  a  kind  and  degree  of  exegetical  neces- 
sity which  no  one  can  imagine  to  exist  in  this  case.  Upon  these  gi-ounds 
it  is  probable,  not  only  that  Jehovah  is  here  represented  as  receiving  a  re- 
ward, but  that  there  is  special  reference  to  the  recompence  of  the  Messiah's 
sufferings  and  obedience  by  the  redemption  of  his  people.  According  to 
the  view  which  has  been  taken  of  the  nexus  between  these  two  verses,  be- 


102  ISAIAH  XL.  [Ver.  11,  12. 

fore  him  may  possibly  contain  an  allusion  to  the  shepherd's  followinfj  his 
flock  ;  but  it  admits  of  ii  more  obvious  and  simple  explanation,  as  denotinj^ 
that  his  recompcncc  is  not  only  sure,  but  actually  rcahsed,  being  already  in 
his  sight  or  presence,  and  with  him,  i,  e.  in  immediate  possession. 

11.  Like  a  shejtherd  his  flock  will  he  fted,  nith  his  arm  uill  he  (father  the 
lambs, and  in  his  bosom  carry  [them) :  the  nursimj  (eues)  he  nill  [ijentli/)  lead. 
Although  the  meaning  of  this  verse  is  plain,  it  is  not  easily  translated,  on 
account  of  the  i)eculiar  tituess  and  signilicancy  of  the  terms  employed. 
The  word  correctly  rendered  feed  denotes  the  whole  care  of  a  shepherd  for 
his  flock,  and  has  therefore  no  exact  equivalent  in  English.  To  gather  iviih 
the  arm  coincides  very  nearly,  although  not  precisely,  with  our  phrase  to 
take  up  ill  the  arms.  A  very  similar  idea  is  expressed  by  hearing  in  the 
bosom.  The  last  clause  has  been  more  misunderstood  than  any  other. 
Most  inteqireters  appear  to  have  regarded  ril?^  as  denoting  pregnant,  where- 
as it  is  the  active  participle  of  the  verb  ?"iy,  to  suckle  or  give  suck,  and  is 
evidently  used  in  that  sense  in  1  Samuel  vi.  7,  10.  The  f(»rmer  explanation 
might  appear  to  have  arisen  from  a  misapprehension  of  the  Vulgate  version, 
foetas,  which,  as  Bochart  has  shewn  by  quotations  from  the  classics,  is 
sometime  applied  to  animals  after  deliver}',  but  while  still  giving  suck. 
But  the  erroneous  explanation  is  much  older,  being  unambiguously  given 

in  the  Septuagint  (h  yaez^l  iyji-jea;).  Aben  Ezra  also  explains  ril7^  as 
8vnon^•mous  with  n'lin,  whereas  Solomon  ben  Melek  gives  the  correct  uitcr- 
pretation  (r^pOT?  mpW?).  The  essential  meaning  of  ^H?*  is  admitted  to 
be  that  of  leading  by  all  interpreters  excepting  Hengstenberg,  who  under- 
takes to  show  that  it  always  has  reference  to  sustenance.  (Commentary 
on  the  Psalms,  under  Ps.  xxiii.  2.)  His  strongest  argument  is  that  derived 
from  Gen.  xlvii.  17  ;  but  he  seems  to  have  overlooked  2  Chron.  xxviii.  15  ; 
and  even  Exod.  xv.  13,  which  he  owns  to  be  against  him,  cannot  be  satis- 
factorily explained  on  his  hypothesis.  In  that  case,  both  the  parullelism 
and  the  construction  in  the  second  clause  are  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  old 
opinion,  from  which  there  seems,  upon  the  whole,  to  be  no  sulHcient  reason 
for  departing.  From  tho  primary  and  simple  sense  of  leading  may  bo 
readily  deduced  that  of  carefully  leading  or  conducting,  which  as  readiij 
suggests  the  accessory  idea  of  benignant  and  alVectionate  protection.  Hen- 
derson's statement,  that  this  verse  and  the  one  before  it  exhibit  certain 
attributes  of  tho  character  and  work  of  Christ,  is  correct,  but  too  restricted, 
since  the  passage  is  descriptive  of  the  whole  relation  which  Jehovah  sus- 
tains to  his  people,  as  their  shepherd,  and  of  which  inferior  but  real  exhibi- 
tions were  afi'orded  long  before  the  advent  of  the  Saviour ;  for  example, 
in  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile,  which  is  no  more  to  bo  excluded 
from  tho  scope  of  this  prophetic  picture  than  to  be  regarded  as  its  only 
sabject. 

12.  ]Vho  hath  measured  the  tratcrs  in  the  holUne  nf  his  hand,  and  meted 
out  heaven  uith  the  span,  and  comprehended  in  a  measure  the  dust  of  the 
earth,  and  toeighcd  in  a  balance  the  mountains,  and  the  /»i7/s  i'm  scales  f 
There  arc  two  directly  opposite  opinions  as  to  tho  general  idea  here  ex- 
pressed. Gesenius  and  others  understand  the  question  as  an  indirect  nega- 
tion of  the  possibility  of  doing  what  is  hero  described.  The  implied  answer 
upon  this  hypothesis,  is,  No  one,  and  tho  verse  is  equivalent  to  tho  excla- 
mation, How  immense  are  tho  works  of  God  !  The  other  and  more  usual 
interim^tation  understands  the  question  thus  :  Who  (but  God)  has  measured 
or  can  measure,  kc.  ?     Thus  understood,  the  verso,  so  far  from  aflirming 


Ver.  12.]  ISAIAH  XL.  103 

the  immensity  of  God's  works,  represents  them  as  little  in  comparison  with 
him,  who  nie:isures  and  distributus  them  with  perfect  ease.  The  first  ex- 
planation derives  some  countenance  from  the  analogy  of  the  next  verse, 
■where  the  question  certainly  involves  an  absolute  negation,  and  is  tantamount 
to  saying,  that  no  one  does,  or  can  do,  what  is  there  described.  But  this 
consideration  is  not  sufficient  to  outweigh  the  argument  in  favour  of  the 
other  explanation,  arising  from  its  greater  simplicity  and  obviousness  in 
this  connection.  It  is  also  well  observed  by  Hitzig,  tbat  in  order  to  convey 
the  idea  of  immensity,  the  large;5t  measures,  not  tbo  smallest,  would  have 
been  employed.  An  object  might  be  too  large  to  be  weighed  in  scales,  or 
held  in  the  hollow  of  a  man's  hand,  and  yet  very  far  from  being  immense 
or  even  vast  in  its  dimensions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  smallness  of  the 
measure  is  entirely  appropriate,  as  shewing  the  immensity  of  God  himself, 
who  can  deal  with  the  whole  universe  as  man  deals  with  the  most  minute 
and  trivial  objects. — ^V.'^'  is  properly  a  hawJful  (1  Kings  xx.  10,  Ezek, 
xiii.  19),  but  is  here  put  for  the  receptacle  or  measure  of  that  quantity. — 
By  loalers  we  arc  not  to  understand  specifically  either  the  ocean  (Grotius) 
or  the  waters  above  the  firmament  (Roscnmiiller),  but  water  as  a  constituent 
element  or  portion  of  the  globe. — The  primary  meaning  of  i?J!1  is  supposed 
by  Gesenius  to  be  that  of  weighing,  here  transfei-red  to  the  measure  of  ex- 
tension. Maurer,  with  more  probability,  regards  it  as  a  generic  term  for 
measurement,  including  that  of  weight,  capacity,  and  extension. — The 
span  is  mentioned  as  a  natural  and  universal  measure  of  length,  to  which 
we  must  likewise  apply  Jerome's  translation  (trihus  diyiiis),  and  not,  as 
Gill  imagines,  to  the  quantity  of  dust  which  "  a  man  can  hold  between 
his  thumb  and  two  fingers." — In  evei-y  other  place  where  73  occurs,  it  is 
the  construct  or  abbreviated  form  of  73,  the  nearest  equivalent  to  our 
all,  but  uniformly  construed  as  a  noun,  meaning  properly  the  whole  of  any- 
thing. The  Septuagint  translates  it  so  in  this  case  likewise  ['xaaa.v  rr^v 
yriv),  and  Gesenius,  in  his  Lehrgebaude  (p.  675),  gives  it  as  one  of  the 
cases  in  which  the  governing  and  governed  noun  are  separated  by  an  inter- 
vening word.  In  quoting  the  Hebrew,  he  inadvertently  inserts  a  makkeph 
^C'*?:i'5"731),  thus  conforming  the  orthography  to  the  usual  analogy.  But 
having  afterwards  observed  that  the  Hebrew  text  has  73  with  a  conjunctive 
accent,  he  coiTccted  the  error  in  his  Lexicon  and  Commentary,  and  referred 
the  word  to  the  root  ^-IS,  which  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  Kal,  but  the 
essential  idea  of  which,  as  appears  from  the  Chaldee  and  Arabic  analogy, 
as  well  as  from  its  own  derivatives  in  Hebrew,  is  that  of  measuring,  or 
rather  that  of  holding  and  containing,  which  agrees  exactly  with  the  common 
English  Version  (^comprehended).  It  is  a  curious  and  characteristic  cir- 
cumstance that  Hitzig,  in  his  note  upon  this  passage,  revives  the  explana- 
tion which  Gesenius  had  given  by  mistake,  and  afterwards  abandoned, 
appeahng  to  Ps.  xxsv.  10  as  an  example  of  the  use  of  73  (all)  with  a  con- 
juuctire  accent,  and  to  Isaiah  xxxviii.  IG  as  an  instance  of  its  separation 
from  the  dependent  noun.  To  this  unexpected  defence  of  his  own  inad- 
vertent ei'rror  Gesenius  replies,  in  his  Thesaurus  (ii.  GG5),  that  clear  ex- 
pressions are  not  to  be  elucidated  by  the  analogy  of  dark  ones,  and  that  a 
verb  is  needed  here  to  balance  the  verbs  measure,  mete,  and  iit'(V//i  in  the 
other  clauses. — The  terms  used  in  the  English  Bible,  scales  and  balance, 
are  retained  above,  but  transposed,  in  order  to  adhere  more  closely  to  the 
form  of  the  original,  in  which  the  first  word  is  a  singular  (denoting  properly 
an  apparatus  like  the  steelyard),  while  the  other  is  a  dual,  strictly  denoting 


104  ISAIAH  XL.  [Ver.  13. 

a  jiair  of  scales.  This  is  in  fact  the  etymological  import  o{  balance,  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  explanation  of  the  Latin  bilunx,  as  denoting  a  double  dish 
or  plate ;  but  be  this  as  it  may,  the  I'^nglish  balance  does  not,  Uke  the 
plural  ncaleK,  at  once  suggest  the  form  of  the  instniment  intended. — The 
dust  of  (lie  earth  seems  to  be  here  put  for  the  earth  itself,  and  is  therefore 
not  erroneously,  though  freely,  rendered  in  the  Vulgate  ntolem  temr.  U'^pK* 
is  properly  a  tliird,  i.e.  the  third  of  another  measure,  probably  the  ephah, 
which  is  often  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  rg/a  fiiria,  while  the  sea/i  is 
translated  /xjVpok.  The  name  is  analogous,  to  (]iiart  (meaning  fourUi),  and 
exactly  coincident  with  ticn-e,  which  Skinner  defines  to  be  "  a  measure  so 
called  because  the  third  part  (triens)  of  another  measure  called  a  pipe," 
but  which  is  also  used  in  old  English  writers  for  the  third  part  of  other 
measures.  (See  Richardson's  Dictionary,  p.  1910.)  The  ephah,  accord- 
ing to  the  best  computation,  was  equivalent  to  one  Italian  modius  and  a 
half.  J.  I).  Michaelis  is  probably  singular  in  thinking  it  necessary  to  ex- 
press the  value  of  the  measure  in  translation,  by  making  the  Prophet  ask, 
who  measures  the  dust  of  the  earth  with  the  third  part  of  a  bushel.  This 
is  not  only  in  l)ad  taste,  but  hurtful  to  the  sense;  because  the  literal  com- 
prehension of  the  earth  in  this  specific  measure  is  impossible,  and  all  that 
the  words  were  intended  to  suggest  is  a  comparison  between  the  customary 
measurement  of  common  things  by  man,  nnd  the  analogous  control  which 
is  exercised  by  God  over  all  his  works.  For  this  end,  the  general  sense 
of  measure,  which  the  word  has  in  Ps.  Ixxx.  0,  and  which  is  given  to  it 
here  by  the  Targum  (N?*3D),  is  entirely  sufficient.  The  exact  size  of  the 
^yl^  is  of  no  more  importance  to  the  exposition  than  that  of  the  balance 
or  the  scales. — The  idea  of  accurate  exact  adjustment,  which  by  some  in- 
terpreters is  thought  to  be  included  in  the  meaning  of  this  verse,  if  expressed 
at  all,  is  certainly  not  prominent,  the  main  design  of  the  description  being 
simply  to  exhibit,  not  the  power  or  the  wisdom  of  God  as  distinguishable 
attributes,  but  rather  the  supreme  control  in  which  tluy  are  both  exer- 
cised.— Ewald  connects  this  verso  with  the  argument  that  follows,  by 
suggesting,  as  the  answer  to  the  question,  that  certainly  no  man,  and  much 
less  the  image  of  a  man,  could  do  what  is  here  described. — Umbreit  con- 
nects it  with  what  goes  before,  by  supposing  the  Prophet  to  affirm  that  the 
gracious  Shepherd,  just  before  described,  is  at  the  same  time  all-wise  and 
omnipotent,  and  therefore  able  to  make  good  the  promise  of  protection  to 
his  people. 

18.  Who  hath  measured  the  .<<]nrit  of  Jehovah,  and  [who,  as)  the  man  of 
hi.s  counsel,  uill  teach  him  (or  cause  him  to  knou)!  According  to  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  the  connection  between  this  verse  and  the  one  before  it  is,  that 
ho  who  can  do  the  one  can  do  the  other ;  if  any  one  can  weigh  the  hills, 
(tc,  he  can  also  measure  the  divine  intelligence.  But  the  natural  con- 
nection seems  to  be,  that  he  who  weighs  the  hills,  kc,  must  himself  be 
independent,  boundless,  and  unsearchable. — The  various  cxphmations  of 
i3fl,  as  meaning  known,  instnicted,  prepared,  directed,  searched,  Ac,  are 
mere  substitutions  of  wliat  ought  to  have  been  said  (in  the  interpreter's 
opinion)  for  what  is  said.  Although  not  impossible,  it  is  highly  improbablo 
that  the  word  should  have  a  difl'erent  meaning  here  from  that  which  it 
evidently  has  in  the  for.'going  verse,  where  the  sense  is  determined  by  the 
mention  of  the  span.  What  seems  to  bo  denied,  is  the  possibility  of  either 
limiting  or  estimating  the  divine  intelligence. — .\ccordin{?  to  Calvin,  we  are 
not  to  understand  by  inn  here  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person  of  the  Godlicad, 


Ver.  14.]  ,         IS  A  LI  J 1  XL.  105 

bnt  the  mind  or  intellect  of  God.  The  Tar^^im  arbitrarily  explains  it  as 
denotin"  tJie  Ilnhj  Spirit  (i.e.  inspiration)  in  the  moiitli  of  all  the  pmjihels. — 
The  last  clause  is  not  an  answer  to  the  first,  but  a  continuation  of  the 
question.  Most  interpreters  suppose  the  uho  to  be  repeated.  Luther  and 
Rosenmiiller  make  it  agree  directly  with  the  following  phrase.  [What 
counsellor,  itc.)  The  latest  writers  make  the  construction  relative  as  well 
as  interrogative.  Who  was  (or  is)  the  counsellor  that  tanijht  him  f  A 
simpler  construction  is  that  given  in  our  Bible,  which  supplies  neither  in- 
terrogative nor  relative:  and  {heinrf)  his  counsellor,  or  (as)  his  counsellor, 
hath  tauffht  him.  The  translation  of  the  last  verb  as  a  preterite  is  entirely 
arbitrary.  Both  tenses  seem  to  have  been  used,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
for  the  purpose  of  making  the  implied  negation  more  exclusive.  117(o  has, 
and  nho  will  or  can? — Ewald,  rejecting  the  usual  combination  oiman  with 
counsel  in  the  sense  of  counsellor,  makes  one  the  suly'ect,  and  the  other  the 
object  of  the  verb,  "  and^revcals — though  a  man — his  counsel  to  him." 
The  same  construction  seems  to  be  at  least  as  old  as  Arias  Montanus,  who 
translates  the  clause  vir  consiliutn.  ejus  scire  faciei  eum.  In  favour  of  the 
usual  interpretation  is  its  greater  simplicity,  and  the  occurrence  of  tho 
plural  form,  the  men  of  mij  counsel,  in  the  obvious  sense  of  counsellors,  in 
Ps.  cxix.  24. — Lowth's  translation  {one  of  his  council)  gives  a  sense  to 
nyy  not  sustained  by  usage,  and  Barnes's  modification  of  it  (one  of  his 
counsel)  introduces  an  idea  wholly  modern  and  irrelevant. — Calvin  supposes 
that  the  Prophet,  having  spoken  of  the  goodness  of  God  in  ver.  11,  and  of 
his  power  in  ver.  12,  here  proceeds  to  magnify  his  wisdom.  But  both 
these  verses  are  designed  alike  to  set  forth  his  supremacy  and  independence, 
by  describing  him  as  measuring  and  regulating  all  things,  while  himself 
incapable  either  of  measurement  or  regulation. 

14,  Whom  did  he  consult  (or  with  whom  took  he  counsel)  and  he  made 
him  understand,  and  taucjht  him  in  the  path  of  judtjmcnt,  and  tautjht  him 
knoich'dije,  and  the  ivaij  of  understandinf]  (who)  will  make  him  know  ? 
The  consecution  of  the  tenses  is  the  same  as  in  the  foregoing  verse.  The 
indirect  construction  of  the  second  and  following  vei'bs,  by  Lowth  and  tho 
later  German  writers  (that  he  should  instruct  him,  &c.),  is  not  only  forced, 
but  inconsistent  with  the  use  of  the  conversive  future,  and  a  gi-atuitous  sub- 
stitution of  an  occidental  idiom  for  the  somewhat  harsh  but  simple  Hebrew 
syntax,  in  which  the  object  of  the  first  verb  is  the  subject  of  the  second. 
What  man  did  he  (the  Lord)  consult,  and  he  (the  man)  )nade  him  (the 
Lord)  to  understand,  &c.  The  sense  is  given,  but  with  little  change  of 
form,  in  the  English  Version,  by  repeating  the  interrogative  pronoun.  With 
whom  took  he  counsel,  and  (who)  instructed  him  or  made  him  understand  f — 
The  preposition  before  path  is  understood  by  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit, 
as  denoting  the  subject  of  instruction :  taught  him  respecting  or  concerning 
(liber)  the  path  of  judgment.  Gesenius  and  Hendewerk  regard  it  as  a  mero 
connective  of  the  verb  with  its  object :  taught  him  the  path,  &c.  But  tho 
most  satisfactory  explanation  is  the  one  proposed  by  ICnobel,  who  attaches 
to  the  verb  the  sense  of  guiding,  and  retains  the  proper  meaning  of  the  par- 
ticle. This  is  confirmed  by  the  analogy  of  the  synonymous  verb  •^7^'"',  which 
originally  means  to  guide,  and  is  also  construed  with  the  same  preposition 
(Ps.  xxxii.  8,  Prov.  iv.  11). — By  judt/ment  we  must  either  understand  dis- 
cretion, in  which  case  the  whole  phrase  will  be  synonymous  with  icatj  of 
understandinij  in  the  parallel  clause;  or  rectitude,  in  which  case  the  whole 
phrase  will  mean  the  rif/ht  way,  not  in  a  moral  sense,  but  in  that  of  a  way 
conducting  to  the  end  desired,  the  right  way  to  attain  that  end.     As  these 


lOG  ISAIAH  XL.  [Ver.  15. 

arc  only  different  expressions  of  the  same  essential  idea,  the  question  is  of 
little  exegetical  importance. — The  plural  nij-n;;!,  literally  uiidt'istamlinffs,  is 
not  an  Arabism,  as  Kn()l)el  elsewhere  affirms  of  this  whole  class  of  words, 
but  a  genuine  Hebrew  idiom,  denotin;,'  fulness  or  an  eminent  do;:jree  of  the 
quality  in  (question,  just  as  niO?n  is  used  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  to  denote 
the  highest  wisdom,  the  snpienlid  In/postatica.  [See  Hengstenberg  on  the 
Pentateuch,  vol,  i.  p.  258,  and  on  Psalm  xUx.  8  (4),j — Jarchi,  with 
characteristic  nationality,  regards  this  as  a  contrast,  not  bi-tween  God  and 
man,  but  between  Israel  and  other  nations :  "  With  which  of  the  Gentiles 
did  he  take  counsel  as  ho  did  with  the  prophets,  as  it  is  said  of  Abraham, 
The  Lord  said,  Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  what  I  am  about  to  do?" — 
Junius  and  Tremellius  make  the  first  verb  reciprocal,  and  all  the  rest  re- 
flexive (Cum  quo  comimiuicarit  consiliiitn,  ut  iiistnierit  se,  Sec.  '.*),  which  is 
wholly  gratuitous  and  forced. — The  first  clause  of  this  verse  is  quoted  in 
Horn.  xi.  3-4,  with  the  following  words  added,  or  ivho  hath  first  iiircn  tn  him, 
ami  it  .'(h/ill  be  rt'ctDiijniisnl  unto  him  ar/tiiii .?  As  this  addition  is  also  found 
in  the  Alexandrian  text  of  the  Septuagint,  J.  D.  Michaelis  infers  that  it 
has  dropped  out  of  the  Hebrew.  It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  the 
words  were  introduced  into  the  Septuagint  from  the  text  in  Romans,  where 
they  are  really  no  part  of  the  quotation  from  Isaiah,  but  the  apostle's  own 
paraphrase  of  it,  or  addition  to  it,  the  form  of  which  may  have  been  sug- 
gested by  the  first  clause  of  Job  xli.  3  (in  the  English  Bible,  xli.  11).  Such 
allusive  imitations  occur  elsewhere  in  Paul's  wTitings.  (See  the  remarks 
on  1  Cor.  i.  20,  and  its  connection  with  Isaiah  xxxiii.  18,  p.  14).  In  the 
present  case,  the  addition  agrees  fully  with  the  spirit  of  the  passage  quoted ; 
fiince  the  aid  in  question,  if  it  had  been  afforded,  would  be  fairly  entitled 
to  a  recompence. 

15.  Lo,  nations  as  a  drop  from  a  huclcet,  and  as  ihist  on  scalet  are  reckoned; 
lo,  islands  as  an  atom  he  uill  take  nji.  He  is  independent,  not  only  of  nature 
and  of  individual  men,  but  of  nations.  The  Septuagint  gives  iH  the  ChaUlee 
sense  of  if,  leaving  the  sentence  incomplete  notwithstanding  the  attempts 
of  the  modern  editors  to  carry  the  construction  through  several  verses.  By 
supplying  are  in  the  first  clause,  the  English  Version  impairs  the  compact 
Btrcngth  of  the  expression.  Both  members  of  the  clause  are  to  bo  con- 
stnied  with  the  verb  at  the  end.  This  verb  De  Wette  and  Hendework 
explain  as  meaning  are  to  be  reckoned  [sind  zit  achten) ;  but  although  this 
future  sense  is  common  in  the  Niplml  participle,  it  is  not  to  bo  a>:sumed  in 
the  preterite  without  necessity.  The  sense  is  rather  that  they  are  already 
so  considered.  Luther  gives  y'^ip  "ID  the  sense  of  a  droji  remaining  in  a 
bucket  when  the  water  is  j)oured  out,  corresponding  to  the  parallel  expres- 
sion of  an  atom  which  remains  in  the  balance  after  anything  is  weighed. 
Hitzig  also  translates  the  last  word  in  the  bncket  (im  Kimcr).  Maurer  gives 
the  strict  translation //•«;«  a  bucket,  and  supposes  hanijinfj  to  be  understood 
((//•  sitnla  ]>endens).  ]iut  as  this  is  not  an  obvious  ellipsis,  it  is  betti-r  to 
explain  the  IP  as  simply  expressing  the  proportion  of  the  drop  to  the  con- 
tents of  the  bucket,  a  drop  out  of  a  whole  bucket.  Next  to  this,  the  simplest 
cxi)lanalion  is  the  one  suggested  in  the  English  Version,  which  seems  to 
tjiko  the  phrase  as  an  indirect  exjtression  for  a  drop  of  water.  But  as  the 
mention  of  the  bucket  would  in  that  case  bo  superfiuous,  the  other  explana- 
tion is  entitled  to  the  preference.  Dust  of  tin-  scales  or  balance,  i.e.  dust 
resting  on  it,  but  witluuit  sensibly  affecting  its  cijuilibrium.  The  Vulgate 
version  {momentum  slat<ru)  si-ems  directly  to  reverse  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  in  which  the  dust  is  obviously  spoken  of  as  Laving  uu  appreciable 


Ver.  16.]  ISAIAH  XL.  107 

weij^lit.  The  exegetical  tradition  is  decisive  in  favour  of  explaining  pHt?'  to 
mean  tine  dust,  while  the  unifomi  usage  of  the  word  in  other  cases  would 
require  the  sense  of  cloud.  It  is  possible  indeed  that  the  image  which  the 
Prophet  intended  to  suggest  was  that  of  a  cloud  in  the  balance,  the  idea  of 
extreme  levity  being  then  conveyed  by  comparison  with  the  weight  of  what 
is  commonly  regarded  as  imponderable.  The  weight  of  authority  is  all  in 
favour  of  the  other  sense,  which  may  be  readily  connected  with  the  common 
one,  by  supposing  pnC'  to  mean  first  a  cloud  in  general,  then  a  cloud  of  dust 
in  particular,  and  then  dust  in  general,  or  more  specifically  fine  minute 
dust.  P?,  from  pp^,  to  crush  or  pulverize,  denotes  any  minute  portion  of 
a  solid  substance,  and  in  this  connection  may  be  well  expressed  by  atom. 
The  Seventy  seem  to  have  mistaken  it  for  P"i,  saliva,  spittle,  and  trans- 
lates it  aiiXog.  Gesenius  gives  DV'S*  the  general  sense  of  landa,  and  then 
notes  this  usage  of  the  word  as  a  sign  of  later  date.  But  why  may  not 
islands,  in  the  strict  sense,  be  intended  here  as  much  as  hills  and  moun- 
tains in  ver.  12  ?  The  only  objection  is  founded  on  the  parallelism  ;  but 
this  is  imperfect,  even  if  we  give  D^?^?  its  widest  s.nse.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
goes  to  the  opposite  extreme,  by  making  it  mean  Europe  and  Asia  Minor. 
Rabbi  Jonah  explains  7113^  as  the  Niphal  of  ^'^^  to  throw  or  cast,  and  this 
explanation  is  retained  by  Knobel.  In  like  manner,  Aquila  has  Xi-rlv 
ISaXyJiMSiov.  But  most  interpreters  agree  in  making  it  the  future  Kal  of 
7PJI,  which  in  Syriac  and  Chaldee  means  to  raise  or  lift  up.  On  the  former 
supposition,  it  must  either  agree  irregularly  with  the  plural  islands,  or  with 
a  relative  to  be  supplied  (like  an  atom  which  is  cast  away).  This  last  con- 
struction is  consistent  also  with  the  other  derivation  of  the  verb.  Thus 
Rosenmiiller  has,  qne7n  tollit  I  aliens  ;  and  Maurer,  wliich  it  (the  wind)  car- 
ries off.  Rat  the  simplest  construction  is  the  one  which  makes  D'?'!^  the 
direct  object  of  the  verb,  as  in  the  English  Version.  Ewald  gives  the  verb 
itself  the  sense  of  pomn//,  weighing,  which  is  too  specific. 

16.  And  Lebanon  is  not  enowjh  for  burning,  and  its  beasts  are  not 
enough  for  a  sacrifice.  The  supremacy  and  majesty  of  God  are  now  pre- 
sented in  a  more  i-eligious  aspect,  by  expressions  borrowed  from  the  Mosaic 
ritual.  He  is  not  only  independent  of  the  power,  but  also  of  the  good  will 
oThis  creatures.  This  general  allusion  to  oblation,  as  an  act  of  homage  or 
of  friendship,  suits  the  connection  better  than  a  specific  reference  to  expia- 
tion. The  iusuHiciency  of  these  otlering-;  is  set  forth,  not  in  a  formal  pro- 
position, but  by  means  of  a  striking  individualisation.  For  general  terms 
he  substitutes  one  striking  instance,  and  asserts  of  that  what  might  be 
asserted  of  the  rest.  If  Lebanon  could  not  suifice,  what  could  ?  The 
imagery  here  used  is  justly  described  by  Umbreit  as  magnificent:  Nature  the 
temple  ;  Lebanon  the  altar  ;  its  lordly  woods  the  pile  ;  its  countless  beasts 
the  sacrifice.  There  is  a  strong  idiomatic  peculiarity  of  form  in  this 
verse.  P?*  and  ^3  are  properly  both  nouns  in  the  construct  state,  the 
first  meaning  non-existence  and  the  other  sufficiency.  The  nearest  ap- 
proach in  English  to  the  form  of  the  original  is  nothing  of  sufficiency  of 
burning  ;  but  PN,  as  usual,  includes  or  indicates  the  verb  of  existence, 
and  ''3  is  followed  by  a  noun  expressive  of  the  end  for  which  a  thing  is 
said  to  be  or  not  to  be  sutHcient.  Clericus  and  Rosenmiiller  give  Tt!^ 
the  sense  of  kindling,  which  it  sometimes  has  (e.  g.  Exod.  xxxv.  3,  Lev. 
vi.  5)  ;  but  as  this  differs  from  burning  only  in  being  limiti'd  to  the  in- 
ception of  the  process,  and  as  it  seems  more  natural  to  speak  of  wood 
enough  to  burn  than  of  wood  enough  to  kindle,  there  is  no  cause  of  de- 
parting  from    the  usual    interpretation.     The    collective  n^'O   {animal  for 


108  ISAIAH  XL.  [Yer.  17. 

animals),  Laving  no  equivalent  in  English,  althongh  common  in  Hebrew, 
can  be  represented  only  by  a  plural, — n^iy  is  the  technical  name  appro- 
priated in  the  law  of  Mosos  to  the  ordinary  sacrifice  for  general  expia- 
tion. It  seems  to  denote  strictly  an  ascension  or  ascent,  bfiug  so  called, 
either  from  the  mounting  of  the  vapour,  or  from  the  ascent  of  the  whole 
victim  on  the  altar.  As  the  phrase  by  which  it  is  commonly  translated 
in  the  English  Bible  {fmrnt-offcnnfi)  is  not  an  exact  etymological  equiva- 
lent, and  as  no  stress  seems  to  be  laid  here  upon  the  species  of  obla- 
tion, the  general  term  nffrrliitf  or  sncri/icr  would  seem  to  be  sutHciently 
specific.  (Compare  with  this  verse  chap.  Ixvi.  1,  1  Kings  viii.  27, 
'2  Chron.  vi.  18,  Ps.  1.  8-13.) 

17.  All  the  tinlinns  as  nnthintj  ln'foie  hint,  lens  than  nothimj  and  vanity  are 
connlfdio  him.  The  proposition  of  ver.  1.5  is  repeated,  but  in  still  more 
absolute  and  universal  terms.  Instead  of  nations,  he  says  all  the  nations  ; 
instead  of  likening  them  to  grains  of  sand  or  drops  of  Wiiter,  he  denies 
their  verv-  being.  Brfore  him  does  not  simply  mean  in  his  view  or  esti- 
mation, but  in  comparison  with  him,  the  primary  import  of  "'.I!.?  being  such 
as  to  suggest  the  idea  of  two  objects  brought  together  or  confronted  for 
the  purpose  of  comparison.  So,  too,  the  parallel  expression  1/  does  not 
mean  hy  htm  (which  is  seldom,  if  ever,  so  expressed  in  Hebrew),  but 
with  re$pc'-t  to  him,  or  simply  to  him  in  the  same  sense  as  when  we  say 
that  one  thing  or  person  is  nothing  to  another,  i.  e.  not  to  be  compared 
with  it.  The  same  use  of  to,  even  without  a  negative,  is  clear  from  such 
expressions  as  '•  Hyperion  to  a  SatjT."  That  God  is  the  arbiter  who 
thus  decides  between  himself  and  his  creatures,  is  still  implied  in  both 
the  phrases,  although  not  the  sole  or  even  prominent  idea  meant  to  be 
expressed  by  either. — The  stnicture  of  the  sentence  is  exactly  like  that  of 
the  first  clause  of  ver.  15,  and  the  same  remark  is  applicable,  as  to  the 
insertion  of  the  substantive  verb  in  the  English  Version. — The  particle 
as  may  either  be  a  mere  connective,  ret  honed  as  nothiv<i,  t.  c.  reckoned 
/or  or  reckoned  to  he  nothing,  which  is  rather  an  English  than  a  Hebrew 
idiom,  or  it  may  serve  to  soften  the  expression  by  suggesting  that  it  is 
not  to  be  literally  understood,  in  which  case  it  is  nearly  equivalent  to 
as  it  were.  So  the  Vulgate  :  Quasi  non  sinf,  sic  sunt  coram  en. — The 
etymological  distinction  between  PN  and  D|^!l  is  that  the  latter  means 
annihilation  or  the  end  of  being,  the  former  absolute  nonentity.  In  this 
case,  the  wea"ker  term  is  assimilated  to  the  stronger  by  the  addition  of 
another  word,  denoting  desolation  or  emptiness,  and  here  used  as  a 
formula  of  intense  negation.  The  preposition  before  DpX  is  explained 
by  some  as  connective  of  the  verb  with  its  object,  reckoned  for  nothing  ; 
which  construction  seems  to  be  as  old  as  the  Septuagint  (i/f  oOfJiK  i/.oyig- 
l}r,aav),  but  is  not  sufiiciently  sustained  by  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  ])ar- 
ticle.  Others  make  it  an  expression  of  resemblance,  like  the  Viilgnte  {<jnasi 
nihiluni);  which  seems  to  be  a  mere  conjecture  from  the  parallelism,  and  is 
e(]ually  at  variance  with  usnge.  Calvin  (followed  by  the  English  Version, 
ClericuB,  Vitringa,  rml)reit,  and  Ewald  in  the  first  edition  of  his  (irammar) 
makes  the  IP  comparative,  and  understands  the  phrase  as  meaning  li-ssihan 
nothing.  To  this  it  is  objected  by  Gesenius,  that  it  does  not  suit  the 
parallelism  (a  virtual  assertion  that  a  climax  is  impossible  in  Hebrew 
composition),  and  that  the  idea  is  too  far-fetched  {:n  grsnchl)  ;  to 
which  Hit/.ig  adds  that  there  is  no  word  to  mean  less,  and  that  if  the 
(P  Were  really  comparntivo,  the  phrase  would  necessarily  mean  more  than 
nothing.     Thi.'sc  objections  arc  renewed  by  Knobel,  without  any  notice  of 


Vek.  18,  19.J  ISAIAH  XL.  109 

Umbreit's  answer  to  the  last,  viz.  that  the  idea  of  minority  is  sugfjested  by 
the  context ;  that  /('.s-.s  than  nothiiu/  could  not  well  be  otherwise  expressed  ; 
and  that  even  if  it  meant  more  than  nolhiny,  it  would  still  be  an  equivalent 
expression,  meaning  more  of  nothing  than  nothing  itself.  Gesenius,  in  his 
Commentary,  makes  the  iP  an  expletive  or  pleonastic  particle,  of  common 
use  in  Arabic,  so  that  the  phrase  means  simply  nolhinf/.  But  in  his  Lexi- 
cons he  agrees  with  Hitzig  and  Maurer  in  giving  it  a  partitive  sense,  of 
nothing,  i.e.  a  part  of  nothing,  which,  as  Hitzig  says,  is  here  conceived  of 
as  a  great  concrete  or  aggregate,  of  which  the  thing  in  question  is  a  portion. 
But  as  the  whole  must  be  greater  than  the  part,  this  explanation  is  essen- 
tially identical  with  Calvin's  {less  than  nothing),  which  Gesenius  admits, 
but  still  objects  to  the  latter  as  being  less  poetical  than  mathematical.  The 
reader  may  determine  for  himself  whether  it  is  any  more  gesucht  than  that 
preferred  to  it,  or  than  that  proposed  by  Hendework,  who  seems  to  under- 
stand the  IP  as  indicating  the  material  or  source,  as  if  he  had  said,  {made 
or  produced)  out  c/ nothing  and  vanity.  The  common  ground  assumed  by 
all  these  explanations  is,  that  the  verse  contains  the  strongest  possible  ex- 
pression of  insignificance  and  even  non-existence,  as  predicable  even  of 
whole  nations,  in  comparison  with  God,  and  in  his  presence. 

18.  And  {noir)  to  whom  ivill  ye  liken  God,  and  iiliat  likenesa  irill  ye  con- 
pare  to  him?  The  inevitable  logical  conclusion  from  the  previous  considera- 
tions is  that  God  is  One  and  that  there  is  no  other.  From  this,  the 
Prophet  now  proceeds  to  argue,  that  it  is  folly  to  compare  God  even  with  the 
most  exalted  creatui*e,  how  much  more  with  lifeless  matter.  The  logical 
relation  of  this  verse  to  what  precedes,  although  not  indicated  in  the  text, 
may  be  rendered  clearer  by  the  introduction  of  an  illative  particle  [then, 
therefore,  &c.),  or  more  simply  by  inserting  now,  which  is  often  used  in 
such  connections.  (See  for  example  Ps.  ii.  10,  and  Hengstenberg's  Com- 
mentary, vol.  i.  p.  44.)  The  last  clause  admits  of  two  constructions, 
both  amounting  to  the  same  thing  in  the  end.  What  likeness  or  resem- 
blance {i.  e.  what  similar  object)  will  ye  compare  to  him  ?  Or,  what  com- 
parison will  ye  institute  respecting  him  '?  The  last  agrees  best  with  the 
usage  of  the  verb,  as  meaning  to  arrange,  prepare,  or  set  in  order  {to  com- 
pare, only  indirectly  and  by  implication) ;  while  at  the  same  time  it  avoids 
the  unusual  combination  of  comparing  a  likeness  to  a  thing  or  person, 
instead  of  comparing  the  two  objects  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  their 
likeness. — The  use  of  the  divine  name  7X  (expressive  of  omnipotence)  is 
here  emphatic  and  significant,  as  a  preparation  for  the  subsequent  exposure 
of  the  impotence  of  idols.  The  Ibrce  of  the  original  expression  is  retained 
in  Yitringa's  version  {Deum  fortem). 

10.  The  image  a  career  has  nronght,  and  a  gilder  uith  gold  shall  orerlaif 
it,  and  chains  of  silver  {he  is)  casting.  The  ambiguous  construction  of  the 
first  clause  is  the  same  in  the  original,  where  we  may  either  supply  a  rela- 
tive, or  make  it  a  distinct  proposition.  In  favour  of  the  first,  which  is  a 
frequent  ellipsis  both  in  Hebrew  and  English,  is  the  fact,  that  the  verse 
then  contains  a  direct  answer  to  the  question  in  the  one  before  it.  AMiat 
have  you  to  set  over  against  such  a  God  ?  The  image  which  an  ordinary 
workman  manufactures.  It  enables  us  also  to  account  for  the  position  of 
the  image  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  and  for  its  having  the  definite 
article,  while  the  following  nouns  have  none,  both  which  forms  of  expres- 
sion seem  to  be  significant,  the  image  which  a  uorknia)i  {i.e.  any  workman) 
can  produce. —  The  consecution  of  the  tenses  seems  to  shew,  that  the  writer 
takes  his  stand  between  the  commencement  and  the  end  of  the  process,  and 


110  ISAIAH  .XL.  [Ver.  20. 

describes  it  as  actually  going  on.  The  carver  has  already  wrought  the 
image,  and  the  gilder  is  about  to  overlay  it. — There  is  a  seeming  incon- 
gruity between  the  strict  etymological  senses  of  the  nouns  and  verb  in 
this  clause  :  ^^  is  profwrly  a  carver,  and  ^Q^  a  carved  or  graven  image ; 
whereas  1P3,  as  descriptive  of  a  process  of  art,  can  only  mean  to  melt,  cast, 
or  found.  This  can  only  be  accounted  for  upon  the  supposition,  that  the 
verb,  or  the  nouns,  or  both,  have  acquired  in  usage  a  more  extensive  or 
indetinite  meaning.  In  the  translation  above  given,  the  discrepancy  has 
been  removed  by  giving  to  the  verb  the  general  sense  of  vrrourjld,  and  to  the 
first  noun  that  of  image,  which  it  evidently  has  in  other  places,  where  a 
contrast  is  exhibited  between  God  and  idols,  of  course  without  regard  to 
the  mode  of  their  formation.  (See  for  example  chap.  xlii.  B,  and  the  note 
on  chap.  xxx.  22,  vol.  i,  p.  482.) — ^!)V  is  properly  a  inelter,  and  is  elsewhere 
applied  both  to  the  smelter  or  finer  of  metals  (Prov.  xxv.  4),  and  to  the 
founder  or  caster  of  images  (Judges  xvii.  4).  The  word  gilder,  although 
not  an  exact  translation,  has  been  used  above,  as  more  appropriate  in  this 
connection  than  the  common  version  goldsmith. — Vp^,  which  elsewhere 
means  to  boat  out  metal  into  thin  plates,  here  denotes  the  application  of 
such  plates  as  an  ornamental  covering.  Henderson  repeats  this  verb,  in 
its  original  sense  of  boating  out,  before  chains  of  silver.  Hitzig  and  Ewald 
continue  the  construction  of  the  first  clause  through  the  second,  and  take 
as  a  noun,  repeated  for  the  sake  of  a  sarcastic  eflect.  (A7id  with  silver 
chains  the  goldsmith.)  A  similar  construction  had  before  been  given  by 
Cocceius,  who  supplies  the  substantive  verb  {et  sunt  caten(r  argerUeir  aurv- 
falri).  Hut  the  diflcrcnt  mode  of  ^\Titing  the  word  in  the  two  clauses  (^l^V 
and  ^11V  seems  to  favour  the  opinion  of  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers, 
that  the  latter  is  a  verbal  form.  Lowth  reads  *!?>*  in  the  preterite,  on 
the  authority  of  twenty-seven  manuscripts  and  three  editions.  Maurer  ex- 
plains it  as  the  Prrcter  Pool,  of  which,  however,  there  is  no  example  else- 
where. Gesenius  regards  it  as  a  participle  used  for  the  present  tense.  It 
is  really  equivalent  to  our  continuous  or  compound  present,  denoting  what 
is  actually  now  in  progress. — The  silver  chains  may  be  considered  either 
pimply  ornamental,  or  as  intended  to  suspend  the  image  and  prevent  its 
falling. 

20.  {As  for)  the  {man)  impoverished  {by)  offering,  a  tree  {that)  will  not 
rot  he  chooses,  a  wise  carver  he  feeks  for  tt,  to  set  up  an  image  {(htit)  shall 
not  be  moved.  While  the  rich  waste  their  gold  and  silver  upon  idols,  the 
poor  are  equally  extravagant  in  wood.  None  of  the  usual  meanings  of  I?p 
is  here  appropriate.  From  the  noun  ni:?ipp  (treasures,  stores),  Rjibbi 
Jonah  derives  the  sense  of  rich,  while  all  the  modern  writ^-rs  are  agreed  in 
giving  it  the  opposite  meaning,  although  doubtful  and  divided  as  to  the 
etymology.  As  the  form  is  evidently  that  of  a  participle  passive,  the  best 
translation  seems  to  be  impoveru>hed,  and  the  best  construction  tlmt  pro- 
posed by  Gesenius  in  his  Lehrgelandc  (p.  H21).  impoverished  bxj  oblation 
or  religious  gifts.  It  is  tnio,  that  in  his  Commentary  and  Lexicons  he 
abandons  this  construction,  on  the  gromul  of  an  objection  made  by  one  of 
his  reviewers,  that  it  docs  not  suit  the  context,  and  adopts  the  one  which 
most  succeeding  writers  have  repeated,  viz.,  poor  at  to  offering,  that  is, 
too  poor  to  make  a  costly  one,  or,  as  Cocceius  slightly  modifies  the  sense, 
frugalior  oblatitmia.  To  this  there  is  a  strong  philological  objection, 
that  nJp-lin,  though  a  very-  common  word,  is  nowhere  else  applied  to  an 
image,  and  that  an  image  could  not  bo  naturally  called  an  otloring.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  objection  from  the  context,  so  submissively  allowed  by 


Vee.  21. J  ISAIAH  XL.  Ill 

Gesenius,  is  not  only  vague  but  founded  on  a  superficial  view  of  the  con- 
nection. To  say  that  the  poor  man  uses  wood  instead  of  gold  and  silver, 
is  coherent  and  appropriate,  but  far  less  significant  and  striking  than  to 
say,  that  the  man  who  has  already  reduced  himself  to  want  by  lavish  gifts 
to  his  idol,  still  continues  his  devotions,  and  as  he  no  longer. can  aflord  an 
image  of  the  precious  metals  is  rusoived  at  least  to  have  a  durable 
wooden  one.  Thus  understood,  the  Verse  adds  to  the  general  description 
a  particular  trait  highly  expressive  of  the  folly  of  idolaters.  The  desertion 
by  Gesenius  of  his  first  opinion  ditters  from  that  mentioned  in  the  exposi- 
tion of  ver.  12  in  this  respect,  that  while  he  there  relinquishes  his  foiTQer 
ground  as  having  been  assumed  through  inadvertance  and  mistake,  he  here 
continues  to  assert  that  what  he  first  proposed  is  still  the  most  grammati- 
cal construction  (as  evinced  by  the  analogy  of  chap.  i.  20,  1  Kings  xxii. 
10,  Ex.  xxviii.  11,  &c.),  but  abandons  it  in  deference  to  an  unmeaning  and 
gratuitous  objection.  The  obscurity  of  this  phrase,  even  to  the  ancient 
writers,  is  appai'ent  from  its  omission  in  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  and 
from  Jerome's  explanation  of  avi^uchan  as  a  kind  of  wood. — In  the  next 
clause,  the  Vulgate  makes  Q?n  Uy^  the  subject  of  the  verb  {arti/ex  sapiens 
querit  quomodo,  &c. ;  but  the  common  construction  is  more  natural,  be- 
cause it  makes  the  conduct  of  the  devotee  still  the  subject  of  description. 
Wise  is  here  used  in  what  appears  to  be  its  primary  meaning  of  artistically 
skilful.  (See  the  note  on  chap.  iii.  3,  p.  110.)  l"?  may  either  be  reflexive  (for 
himself),  as  some  consider  it  in  ver.  11,  and  as  all  admit  "=1^  to  be  in  ver. 
9,  or  it  may  be  refered  to  YV..  Having  secured  the  stuff,  he  seeks  for  it  a 
skilful  workman.  As  YV.  is  an  obvious  antecedent,  and  as  the  reflexive  use 
of  the  pronouns  is  comparatively  rare,  this  last  construction  seems  entitled 
to  the  preference. — Although  to  prepare  is  a  very  common  meaning  of  ppn, 
its  primary  sense  of  setting  upright  or  erecting  is  entitled  to  the  preference, 
not  only  upon  etymological  gi-ounds,  but  because  it  agrees  better  with  the 
following  expression,  t31S^  N7,  which  stands  in  antithesis,  not  to  the  pre- 
paration of  the  image,  but  to  its  erection  or  establishment,  in  which  the 
previous  preparation  is  of  course  implied. — As  kinds  of  wood  regarded  by 
the  ancients  as  perfectly  durable,  Grotius  enumerates  the  cypress,  grape- 
vino,  juniper,  and  mulberry  ;  lloscumiiller  the  olive,  cedar,  fir,  and  oak  ;  to 
which  Gesenius  adds  the  lotus  and  the  fig-tree.  There  is  no  need,  how- 
ever, of  supposing  a  specific  reference  to  an}-  one  or  more  of  these  varieties. 
21.  Will  i/on  not  loioic?  vill  you  not  hear?  has  it  not  been  told  ijou  from 
the  first?  have  you  not  understood  the  foundations  (or  from  the  foundations) 
of  the  earth  ?  The  tenses  of  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  have  been  variously 
and  arbitrarily  explained  by  different  interpreters.  The  English  Version  and 
some  others  exchange  both  the  futures  for  praeters  {have  ye  not  known? 
have  ye  not  heard?)  without  any  satisfactory  reason  or  authority.  So  far 
is  such  a  reason  from  being  afforded  by  the  addition  of  the  preterite  "IIP  in 
this  place,  or  the  use  of  the  praeters  ^VT^  and  J^V^'^  in  ver.  28,  that  it 
rather  proves  the  contrary,  and  makes  it  necessary  to  retain  the  sti'ict  sense 
of  the  futures.  Still  more  capricious  is  the  explanation  of  the  first  verb  as 
a  present,  and  the  second  as  a  praeter,  by  the  Vulgate  and  some  modem 
wTiters  {do  you  not  know?  have  you  not  heard?).  With  as  much  or  as  little 
reason  Cocceius  combines  the  present  and  the  future  {do  you  not  know  f 
will  you  not  hear?).  There  is  less  objection  to  the  rendering  of  both  verbs 
in  the  present  tense  by  Luther  {know  you  not?  hear  you  not?).  But  the 
most  satisfactory,  because  the  safest  and  most  regular  construction,  is  the 


112  ISAIAH  XL.  TYkr.  22. 

strict  one  given  in  the  Septuagint  (oJ  ytuitnaSe ;  o'jx  axcjeiaCi ;),  revived  bv 
Lowth  (in//  you  not  hnouf  irill  you  nul  hear?),  and  approved  by  Ewald 
in  mtlll  ihr  nicht  erkeiin  -iif  o  unlit  ihr  fiivht  huicn?).  The  clause  is  then 
not  a  mere  expression  of  surprise  at  their  not  knowing,  but  of  concern  or 
indignation  at  their  being  unwilling  to  know.  There  is  no  inconsistency 
between  this  explanation  of  the  first  two  questions  and  the  obvious  meaning 
of  the  third,  because  the  proof  of  their  unwillingness  to  hear  and  know  was 
the  fact  of  their  having  been  informed  from  the  beginning. — 'k."X"ip  is  not 
a  mere  indefinite  expression  meaning  long  ago,  of  old,  or  the  like,  but  must 
refer  to  some  specific  tenniiins  a  ijno,  which  Aben  Ezra  takes  to  be  the 
beginning  of  life.  This  would  be  more  appropriate  if  an  individual  were 
the  object  of  address.  Others  understand  it  to  mean,  from  the  beginning 
of  vour  national  existence,  which  supposes  too  exclusive  a  reference  to  the 
Jews  in  exile.  Neither  of  these  objections  lies  against  the  reference  of  the 
words  to  the  beginning  of  the  human  race,  or  of  the  world  itself,  which  is, 
moreover,  favoured  by  the  subsequent  appeal  to  the  creation.  Kimchi 
explains  w'SlO  as  an  allusion  to  the  cahbahili  or  Jewish  tradition,  and  Hitzig 
likewise  thinks  there  is  a  tsvofold  appeal  to  nature  and  tradition,  or,  as 
Calvin  more  scripturally  states  it,  to  the  word  and  works  of  God.  But 
although  this  aflbrds  a  good  sense,  it  may  perhaps  be  too  great  a  refinement 
on  the  plain  import  of  the  words,  which  would  seem  to  refer  simply  to  the 
testimonv  of  external  nature,  and  to  mean  that  they  who  question  the  exist- 
ence or  supremacy  of  one  God  are  without  excuse,  as  Paul  sa^'s,  because  the 
inrhiblc  thiiif/s  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being 
understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  to  uit,  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head. (Rom.  i.  20.  Compare  Acts  xiv.  17,  xvii.  24.) — In  the  last  cliuse 
Gesenius  and  most  of  the  later  writers  connect  the  verb  directly  with  tho 
noun,  as  meaning,  hare  you  not  considered  (or  hare  you  not  understood)  the 
foundations  of  the  earth  f  Others,  adhering  to  the  Masorctic  accents,  which 
forbid  the  immediate  grammatical  conjunction  of  the  verb  and  noun,  prefix 
a  proposition  to  the  latter.  Hare  you  not  understood  {from)  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth-  The  particle  thus  supplied  may  either  be  a  particle  of 
time,  as  explained  by  Junius  and  Ewald  [since  the  creation),  or  indicate  the 
source  of  knowledge  {from' the  creation),  as  explained  by  Calvin.  Tho 
latter  is  more  obvious  and  simple  in  itself,  but  the  other  is  favoured  by  the 
parallelism,  as  t'NiO  is  universally  allowed  to  have  a  temporal  meaning. 
Lowth's  emendation  of  the  text,  by  tho  actual  insertion  of  the  preposition, 
is  superfluous,  and  therefore  inadmissible. — By  the  foundations  of  the  earth 
wo  are  not  to  understand  a  literal  description  of  its  structure,  nor  an  allu>ion 
to  the  four  elements  of  earth,  air,  fire,  and  water,  upon  which  Kimchi  hero 
inserts  a  dissertation,  but  as  a  substitution  of  the  concrete  for  the  abstract, 
the  foundations  of  the  earth  being  put,  by  a  natural  and  common  figure, 
for  its  being  founded,  i.e.  its  creation. 

22.  The  {one)  silting  on  (or  over)  the  circle  oj  the  earth,  and  its  inha- 
bitants {are)  as  grasshopi>ers  (or  locusts)  ;  the  one  spreading  like  a  rril  (or 
au-ning)  the  heavens,  and  he  stretches  them  out  like  the  tent  to  dwell  in.  The 
relative  construction,  he  that  sittcth,  is  substantially  correct,  but  it  is  belter 
to  retain,  as  fur  as  possible,  the  form  of  tho  original,  as  given  above.  The 
words  may  then  be  construed  with  the  verb  of  existence  understood,  as  iu 
the  English  Version  {it  is  he  that  sitteth),  or  with  tho  last  verb  iu  tho  pre- 
ceding verse  {have  ye  not  ctmsidered  the  one  silting/  etc.). — The  circle  of  the 
earth  may  cither  mean  tho  earth  itself,  or  the  heavens  by  which  it  is  sur- 
mouuted  and  encompassed.    (Solomon  Ben  Melek,   pfi?  a3icr  5jiJ.)    This 


Ver.  23,  24. J  ISAIAH  XL.  113 

expression  has  been  urged  with  equal  propriety  by  Gill  as  a  proof  that  the 
Prophet  was  acquainted  with  the  true  shape  of  the  earth,  and  by  Knobel  as 
a  proof  that  he  had  a  false  idea  of  the  heavens.  On  the  absurdity  of  such 
conclusions,  see  p.  20.  As  a  parallel  to  this  may  be  mentioned  the 
remark  of  Hendewerk,  that  God  is  here  described  as  bearing  just  the  same 
proportion  to  mankind  that  the  latter  bear  to  insects !  The  same  comparison 
occurs  in  Num.  xiii.  33.  2jn  is  now  commonly  explained  to  mean  a  species 
of  locust,  which  of  course  has  no  effect  upon  the  point  of  the  comparison, 
the  essential  idea  being  that  of  hestiohc  (Calvin)  or  mimita  anivuintla 
(Grotius). — p"1  is  properly  a  fine  cloth,  here  applied,  as  Lowth  supposes,  to 
the  awning  spread  over  the  open  courts  of  oriental  houses.  It  has  been 
disputed  whether  the  last  words  of  the  verse  mean  for  himself  to  dwell  in, 
or  for  man  to  dwell  in.  But  they  really  fonn  part,  not  of  the  direct 
description,  but  of  the  comparison,  like  a  tent  pitched  for  dwelling  in,  an 
idea  distinctly  expressed  in  the  translation  both  by  Henderson  («  duelling- 
tent)  and  Ewald  [das  Wohnzelt). — With  this  verse  compare  chaps,  xlii.  5, 
xliv.  24;  Job  ix.  8;  Ps.  civ.  2. 

23.  The  [one)  briiiffinif  (literally  (firing  or  putting)  princex  to  nothing, 
the  judges  (or  rulers)  of  the  earth  like  ewjitiness  (or  desolation')  he  has  made. 
Not  only  nature  but  man,  not  only  individuals  but  nations,  not  only  na- 
tions but  their  rulers,  are  completely  subject  to  the  power  of  God.  The 
Septuagint  understands  \\^7  as  meaning  so  as  to  rule  over  nothing  (wf 
oud'iv  asyiiv),  implying  the  loss  of  their  authority.  The  Vulgate  strangely 
renders  D*?fn  secretorum  scrutatores,  a  version  probably  suggested  by  the 
Chiildee  n,  a  secret. 

24.  Xot  eren  planted  were  tlieg,  not  even  sou-n,  not  even  rooted  i)i  the 
ground  their  stock,  and  he  just  breathed  (or  blew)  upon  them,  and  they 
witJiered,  and  a  irhirluind  like  the  chaff'  shall  take  them  up  (or  away). 
The  Targum  gives  ?3  ^^?  the  sense  of  though  (1?*SX),  Aben  Ezra  and 
Kimchi  that  of  as  if  (17X3),  which  last  is  adopted  by  Luther  and  Calvin. 
Gescnius  and  the  later  German  writers  all  agi'ce  that  the  compound  phrase 
has  here  the  sense  of  scarcely,  X  by  itself  denotes  accession,  and  may 
sometimes  be  expressed  hy  yea  or  yes,  sometimes  by  also  or  even.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  in  the  present  case  the  ^*<  in  one  clause,  and  the  correspond- 
ing D3  in  the  other,  were  intended  to  connect  the  statements  of  this  verse 
with  the  one  before  it.  As  if  he  had  said,  not  only  can  God  ultimately 
bring  them  to  destruction,  but  «/,w  when  they  are  not  yet  planted,  &c. ;  not 
only  by  slower  and  more  potent  means,  but  also  by  breathing  on  them. 
Another  possible  solution  is  that  yes  and  no  are  here  combined  to  express 
the  idea  of  uncertainty,  as  if  he  had  said,  they  are  and  are  not  sown, 
planted,  &c.,  i.e.  when  they  are  scarcely  sown,  or  when  it  is  still  doubtful 
whether  they  are  sown.  But  perhaps  the  simplest  and  most  natural  con- 
struction is  the  one  assumed  above  in  the  translation,  where  the  phrase  is 
taken  as  substantially  equivalent  to  our  not  even,  yielding  the  same  sense 
in  the  end  with  the  usual  modern  version  scarcely.  The  future  form  which 
some  give  to  the  verbs  is  wholly  arbitrary.  He  is  describing  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  great  ones  of  the  earth  as  alreadj'  effected  ;  and  even  if  the 
prrcters  he  prateritti  prophetica,  there  is  no  more  need  of  giving  them  the 
future  form  in  English  than  in  Hebrew.  The  transition  to  the  future  in 
the  last  clause  is  analogous  to  that  in  ver  19,  and  has  the  same  effect  of 
shewing  that  the  point  of  observation  is  an  intermediate  one  between  the 
beginning  and  the  end  of  the  destroying  process.     The  essential  meaning 

VOL.  U.  H 


114  ISAIAH  XL.  [Veu.  25,  26. 

of  the  whole  verse  is,  that  God  can  extirpate  them,  not  onlv  in  the  rud, 
but  in  a  moment  ;  not  only  in  the  hci^'ht  of  their  iJrosptrity,  but  long 
before  they  have  attained  it.  J.  D.  Michaclis  supposes  a  particular  allu- 
sion to  the  frequency  with  which  the  highest  families  became  extinct,  so 
that  there  is  not  now  on  earth  a  royal  house  which  is  the  hneal  representa- 
tive of  any  race  Ihat  reigned  hi  ancient  times.  It  is  possible,  however, 
that  the  words  may  have  refirmcc  to  the  national  existence  of  Israel  as  a 
nation,  the  end  of  which,  with  the  continued  and  more  gloijous  existence  of 
the  church,  independent  of  all  national  restrictions,  may  be  said  to  con- 
stitute the  great  theme  of  these  prophecies. 

25.  And  now  to  {whom)  will  ye  liken  me,  and  {to  whom)  shall  I  he  equal  T 
saith  the  Holy  One.  He  winds  up  his  argument  by  coming  back  to  the 
triumphant  challenge  of  vcr.  j_8.  This  repetition  docs  not  seem  to  have 
struck  any  one  as  indicating  a  strophical  arrangement,  although  such  a 
conclusion  would  1  e  quite  as  valid  as  in  many  other  cases.  The  indirect 
construction  of  the  second  verb  as  a  subjunctive  {that  I  may  or  should  be 
equal),  although  preferred  by  Luther,  Calvin,  and  most  modem  writers,  is 
much  less  simple  in  itself,  and  less  consistent  with  the  genius  and  usage  of 
the  language,  than  its  strict  Iranslatirn  as  a  future,  continuing  directly  the 
interrogation  of  the  other  clause. — The  epithet  Holy  is  in  this  fonncction 
well  explained  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  as  including  all  that  distinguishes  be- 
tween God  and  his  creatures,  so  that  the  antithesis  is  perfect.  (Compare 
chap.  vi.  3,  vol.  i.  page  147.)     {I 

26.  Lift  up  on  high  your  eyes  and  see — who  hath  created  these  ? — {and 
icho  is)  the  {one)  hrivying  out  hy  nvmher  their  host  f — to  all  of  than  by 
name  will  he  call — /ro7n  abundance  of  might  and  {because)  strong  in  power 
— not  one/aileth  (literally  a  man  is  not  mifscd  or  found  wanting).  The 
same  exhortation  to  lift  up  the  eyes  occurs  elsewhere  in  Isaiah  (chap, 
xxxvii.  23,  xlix.  18,  Ix.  4. — The  construction  is  not,  see  {him)  who  neated 
these,  or,  see  who  created  these,  but,  as  the  accents  indicate,  tec,  behold,  the 
heavens  and  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  then  as  a  distinct  interrogation,  who 
created  these  ?  There  is  more  doubt  as  to  the  question  whether  the 
following  words  continue  the  interrogation  or  contain  the  answer  to  it.  In 
the  former  case,  the  sense  is.  Who  created  these  1  {who  j.s)  the  {one)  bringing 
out,  &c.  ?  In  the  latter  case.  Who  created  these  1  The  {one)  bringing  out, 
Ac.  This  last  is  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  chap.  xli.  4,  26,  xlii.  24,  and 
other  places,  where  a  similar  question  is  immediately  succeeded  1  y  the 
answer.  But  in  this  case  such  an  answer  would  be  almost  unmeaning, 
fiince  it  would  merely  say  that  he  who  rules  tbe  luavmly  bodies  made 
them.  It  is  much  more  natural  to  understand  the  lust  clause  as  completii  g 
the  description. — To  bring  out  is  a  niilitur}'  term,  as  appears  from  chap, 
xliii.  17,  and  2  Sam.  v.  2.  It  is  applied  as  here  to  the  host  of  heaven  in 
Job.  xxxviii.  32. — Instead  of  l>y  number,  Zwingle  and  Ileiidcrson  under- 
stand the  phrase  to  mean  in  nundier,  i.e.  in  great  numi  ers,  just  ns  nb? 
means  uith  wight  or  mightily.  But  the  common  explanation  of  the  phrase 
as  denoting  order  and  arrangement  is  favoured  not  only  by  the  military  form 
of  the  whole  description,  but  by  the  parallel  expressic  n  by  name,  vhich  is 
not  used  to  cjualify  the  noun  but  the  verb,  and  to  shew  in  what  way  the 
commander  of  this  mighty  host  exerts  his  power,  in  what  way  he  brings 
out  and  calls  his  soldiers,  viz.,  by  numl  er  and  byname.  The  reference  of 
these  clauses  to  the  rising  of  the  Ik  avenly  bodies  makes  them  too  specific, 
and  confounds  direct  desrriptif  n  with  coniparison.  The  smse  is  thut  the 
Btars  are  like  an  army  which  its  leader  brings  out  and  cm  mcrales.  tho 


Ver.  27,  28.]  ISAIAH  XL.  115 

particular  points  of  the  resemblance  being  left  to  the  imagination.  The 
explanation  of  P^X  by  Gesenius  and  others  as  an  abstract  meaning 
strength  is  neither  justified  by  usage  nor  required  by  the  context,  since  the 
word  may  be  applied  as  a  descriptive  epithet  to  God,  who  is  the  subject  of 
the  sentence.  It  is  an  old  and  singular  opinion  that  the  strength  here 
spoken  of  is  that  residing  in  the  stars  themselves.  ^^V).  ^^  may  also  be 
regarded  as  a  military  phrase.  The  feminine  form  of  the  same  ex- 
pression occurs  in  a  difl'erent  application,  chap,  xxxiv.  16.    (See  p.  31.) 

27.  M'liy  ivilt  thou  say,  0  Jacob,  and  tvhy  (tJnis)  speak,  0  Israel  ?  Hid- 
den is  my  way  from  Jeliovah,  and  from  my  God  my  cause  will  pass  (or  is 
about  to  pass)  aivay.  The  future  verbs  in  this  verse  have  been  rendered 
as  variously  as  those  in  ver.  21.  The  precise  question  asked  by  the  Pro- 
phet is  not  why  hast  thou  said,  why  dost  thou  say,  or  why  shouldest  thou  say, 
but  wh}'  wilt  thou  still  go  on  to  say,  implying  that  it  has  been  said,  was 
still  said,  and  would  be  said  again. — The  two  names  of  the  patriarch  are 
here  combined,  as  in  many  other  cases,  to  describe  his  offspring. — Hidden 
may  either  mean  unhnoion,  or  neglected,  ox  forgotten,  in  which  last  sense  it 
is  used  below  in  chap.  Ixv.  16.  The  same  verb  is  applied  in  Gen.  xxxi. 
49,  to  persons  who  are  absent  from  each  other,  and  of  course  out  of  sight. 
—  Way  is  a  common  figure  for  the  course  of  life,  experience,  or  what  the 
world  calls  fortune,  destiny  or  fate. — The  figure  in  the  last  clause  is  forensic, 
the  idea  being  that  of  a  cause  or  suit  dismissed,  lost  sight  of,  or  neglected 
by  the  judge.  The  expression  is  analogous  to  that  in  chap.  i.  2.3,  where 
it  is  said  of  the  unjust  judges,  that  the  cause  of  the  widow  does  not  come 
unto  them  or  before  them.  (See  p.  91.)  The  state  of  mind  described  is 
a  sceptical  despondency  as  to  the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises.  Since  this 
form  of  unbelief  is  more  or  less  familiar  to  the  personal  experience  of  believers 
in  all  ages,  and  the  terms  of  the  expostulation  here  are  not  restricted  to 
any  single  period  in  the  history  of  Israel,  the  grave  conclusions  drawn 
by  Gesenius  and  Knobel  with  respect  to  the  prevalence  of  an  epicurean 
scepticism  at  the  period  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  have  an  air  of  solemn 
trifling,  and  the  proofs  of  later  date  which  they  afi'ord  are  "  like  unto  them." 

28.  Hast  thou  not  known  /  hast  thou  not  heard  ?■  The  God  of  eternity  (or 
everlasting  God),  Jehovah,  the  Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth,  uill  not  faint, 
and  u-ill  not  tire  ;  there  is  no  search  (with  respect)  to  his  understanding. 
Most  of  the  modern  writers  prefer  Lowlh's  construction,  that  Jehovah  {is) 
the  everlastiug  God ;  but  this,  by  making  several  distinct  propositions,  im- 
pairs the  simpUcity  of  the  construction.  The  translation  of  the  futures 
in  the  present  or  potential  form  [does  not  or  cannot  faint),  though  not 
eiToneous,  is  inadequate,  since  both  these  senses  are  included  in  the  pro- 
miscuous form  or  future  proper.  That  he  loill  not  faint  or  tire,  implies 
sufficienily  in  this  case  that  he  neither  does  nor  can,  while  it  expresses  his 
unwillingness  to  do  so.  ^  The  ends  of  the  earth  is  a  common  Hebrew  phrase 
for  its  limits  and  all  that  they  include.  The  Septuagint  makes  the  Pro- 
phet say  that  Jehovah  will  not  hunger  (r/j  mivdeu). — This  verse  contains  an 
answer  to  the  unbelieving  fears  expressed  in  that  before  it,  which  ascribed 
to  God  an  imperfection  or  infinnity  with  which  he  is  not  chargeable.  The 
hist  clause  may  either  be  a  general  assertion  that  he  cannot  leave  his  people 
unprotected  through  a  want  of  understanding  and  of  knowledge,  or,  as 
Hitzig  supposes,  a  suggestion  that  his  methods  of  proceeding,  though  in- 
scrutable, are  infinitely  wise,  and  that  the  seeming  inconsistency  between 
his  words  and  deeds,  far  from  arguing  unfaithfulness  or  weakness  upon 
his  part,  does  but  prove  our  incapacity  to  understand  or  fathom  his  pro- 


IIG  ISAIAH  XL.  [Veb.  29-31. 

found  designs.     Even  supposing  that  the  former  is  the  strict  sense  of  the 
words,  the  latter  is  implicitly  contained  in  them. 

29.  Giving  to  the  faint  (or  ueari/)  stirn/fth,  and  to  tfu  powerless  might  vill 
he  increase.  He  is  not  only  strong  in  himself,  but  the  giver  of  strength  to 
others,  or,  to  state  it  as  an  argument  a  fortiori,  he  who  is  the  only  source 
of  strength  to  others  must  be  strong  himself,  and  able  to  fulfil  his  promises. 
— The  construction  is  similar  to  that  in  vers.  22.  23,  not  excepting  the 
transition  from  the  participle  to  the  finite  verb.  IDJ  is  not  strictly  a  peri- 
phrasis for  the  present  tense,  as  rendered  in  the  English  Version,  but 
agrees  with  Jehovah  as  the  subject  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  position 
of  this  word  at  the  beginning  and  of  the  corresponding  verb  at  the  end  of 
the  verse  is  emphatic  and  climactic,  the  first  meaning  simply  to  give,  the 
other  to  give  more,  or  abundantly. — The  Septuagint  has,  giving  to  the 
hiiiignj  strength,  and  to  those  that  grieve  not  sorrow. 

80.  And  {get)  ucary  shall  youths  be  and  faint,  and  chosen  (youths)  shall 
be  weakened,  be  iveahriicd.  There  is  here  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  terms 
of  ver.  28.  What  is  there  denied  of  God  is  here  affirmed,  not  only  of  men 
in  general,  but  of  the  stoutest  and  most  vigorous,  aptly  represented  by  the 
young  men  chosen  for  military  service,  which  appears  to  be  a  better  ex- 
planation of  D*>in3  than  the  one  given  by  Gesenius,  viz.  choice,  or  chosen, 
in  reference  to  personal  beauty.  (Compare  chap.  ix.  IG,  vol.  i.  p.  21 G.)  Fiirst, 
with  still  less  probability,  supposes  the  essential  meaning  to  be  that  of 
gi'owth  or  adolescence.  That  the  prominent  idea  here  conveyed  is  that  of 
manly  strength  and  vigour,  is  not  questioned. — For  the  evidence  that  X*'?J 
strictly  means  to  grow  weak  or  be  weakened,  see  1  Sam.  ii.  1,  Zech. 
xii.  8,  and  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  tom.  ii.  p.  720. — The  intensive  repeti- 
tion of  the  verb  may  either  be  expressed  by  the  addition  of  an  adverb,  as 
in  the  English  Version  (utterly /all),  or  retained  in  the  translation  as  above. 

HI.  And  (on  the  other  hand)  those  wailing  for  Jehovah  shall  gain  new 
strength;  they  shall  raise  the  pi7iio7i  like  the  eagles,  they  shall  run  arul  not 
be  weary,  they  shall  u:alk  and  not  faint.  The  marked  antithesis  between 
this  verse  and  that  before  it,  justifies  the  use  of  hut  in  English,  although 
not  in  the  original.  ni|5  is  to  wait  for  or  expect,  implying  faith  and  patience. 
This  is  also  the  old  English  meaning  of  the  phrase  to  wait  upon,  as  applied 
to  servants  who  await  their  master's  orders  ;  but  in  modern  usage  the  iilea 
of  personal  service  or  attendance  has  become  predominant,  so  that  the 
English  phrase  no  longer  represents  the  Hebrew  one.  Jehovah's  waiters, 
which  is  Ewald's  bold  and  faithful  version  (Jahve's  llarrer),  would  convey, 
if  not  a  false,  an  inadequate  idea  to  the  P^nglish  reader.  The  class  of 
persons  meant  to  be  described  are  those  who  shew  their  confidence  in  God's 
ability  and  wilHngness  to  execute  his  promises,  by  patiently  awaiting  their 
fulfilment.  The  n'striction  of  these  words  to  the  exiles  in  liabylon  is 
entirely  gratuitous.  Although  applicable,  as  a  general  proposition,  to  that 
case  among  others,  they  admit  of  a  more  direct  and  striking  ajiplication  to 
the  case  of  those  who  under  the  old  dispensation  kept  its  ind  in  view,  and 
still  "  waited  for  the  consolation  of  Israel,"  and  ''looked  for  redemi)tion  in 
Jerusalem  "  (Luke  i.  25,  88). — The  phrase  translated  they  shall  gain  new 
strength  properly  means  they  slutll  exchange  strength;  but  the  usage  of  the 
verb  determines  its  specific  meaning  to  be  that  of  changing  for  the  better 
or  improving.  The  sense  is  therefore  correctly  given  in  the  English  Ver- 
sion (they  shall  renew  their  strength). — Of  the  next  phrase  there  are  three 
distinct  interpretations.  1.  The  English  Hibit!  follows  Lutlier  in  explain- 
ing^vy'asthc  future  Kul,  and  1?}<  as  a  qualifying  noun,  equivalent  to  the 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAH  XLI.  117 

ablative  of  instrument  in  Latin  {they  shall  mount  up  with  wings).     This 
construction  is  also  adopted  by  Junius,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Augusti,  Hen- 
derson, and  Barnes.     2.  The  second  opinion  is  expressed  in  Lowth's  trans- 
lation :   they  shall  jnit  forth  fresh  feathers  like  the  moulting  eagle.     The 
reference  is  then  to  the  ancient  belief  of  the  eagle's  great  longevity,  and  of 
its  frequently  renewing  its  youth  (Ps.  ciii.  5).     The  rabbinical  tradition, 
as  recorded  by  Saadias,  is,  that  the  eagle,  at  the  end  of  every  tenth  year, 
soars  so  near  the  sun  as  to  be  scorched  and  cast  into  the  sea,  from  which 
it  then  emerges  with  fresh  plumage,  till  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  decade,  or 
a  century  complete,  it  sinks  to  rise  no  more.     This   explanation   of  the 
phrase  before  us  is  given  not  only  by  the  Septuagint  ('zriscfvriaoviriv),  and 
the  Vulgate  {as.mmciit  pennas),  but  by  the  Targum  and  Peshito,  although 
more  obscurely.     In  later  times  it  is  approved  by  Grotius,  Clericus,  J.  I). 
Michaelis,  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  and  De  Wette.     The  principal  objections 
to  it  are,  that  -1?^,^  has  nowhere  else  the  sense  of  putting  forth  (although 
the  root  does  sometimes  mean  to  sprout  or  grow),  and  that  "l3^?  does  not 
denote  feathers  in  general,  but  a  wing-feather  or  a  pinion  in  particular. 
8.  A  third  construction,   simpler  than  the  first,   and   more   agreeable  to 
usaf'e  than  the  second,  gives  the  verb  its  ordinar)'  sense  of  causing  to  ascend 
or  raising,  and  the  noun  its  proper  sense  of  pinion,  and  connects  the  two 
directly  as  a  transitive  verb  and  its  object,  they  shall  raise  the  pinion,  (or 
the  wing)  like  the  eagles.     This  construction  is  adopted  by  Calvin,  Hensler, 
Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Umbreit,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel ;  and,  though 
charged  by  Beck  with  enormous  flatness,  is  even  more  poetical  than  that 
which  supposes  an  allusion,  not  to  the   soaring,  but  the  moulting  of  the 
eagle.     In  the  last  clause  the  verbs  V?)  and  ^J  are  introduced  together  for 
the  third  time  in  a  beautiful  antithesis.     In  ver.  28  they  are  applied  to 
Jehovah,  in  ver.  30  to  the  strongest  and  most  vigorous  of  men,  as  they  are 
in  themselves,  and  here  to  the  waiters  for  Jehovah,  the  believers  m  his  pro- 
mises, who  glory  m  infirmity  that  his  strength  may  be  made  perfect  in  their 
weakness  (2  Cor.  xii.  9). — Knobcl's  comment  on  this   promise  is  charac- 
teristic of  his  age  and   school.     After  condescendingly   shewing  that  the 
thought  is  a  correct  one  (der  Gcdanke  ist  richtig),  he  explains   himself  by 
saying,  that  trust  in  dinne  help  does  increase  the  natural  powers,  and  that 
this  cflect  is  viewed   by   the  pious  writer   (i.  e.   Isaiah)   as   a   direct  gift 
of  God  in  requital  of  the   confidence   reposed  in  him.     All  this,  though 
absolutely  true,  is  relatively  false,  so  for  as  it  implies  superiority  in  point 
of  elevation  and  enlargement,  on  the  part  of  the  expounder  as  imagining 
himself  to  be  more  than  a  prophet  (Luke  xi.  9). 

CHAPTER  XLI. 

Until  the  ends  of  Israel's  national  existence  are  accomplished,  that 
existence  must  continue  [in  spite  of  hostile  nations  and  their  gods,  who 
shall  all  perish  sooner  than  the  chosen  people,  vers.  1-lG.  However 
feeble  Israel  may  be  in  himself,  Jehovah  will  protect  him,  and  raise  up  the 
necessary  instruments  for  his  deliverance  and  triumph,  vers.  17-29. 

1.  Be  silent  to  me,  0  islands,  and  the  nations  shall  gain  new  strength  ; 
they  shall  approach,  then  shall  they  speak,  together  to  the  jadgment-seat  will 
toe  draiv  near.  Having  proved  the  impotence  of  idols  in  a  direct  address 
to  Israel,  Jehovah  now  summons  the  idolaters  themselves  to  enter  into 
controversy  with  him.  The  restriction  of  islands  here  to  certain  parts  of 
Europe  and  Asia  seems  preposterous.     The  challenge  is  a  general  one 


118  ISAIAII  XLI.  [Veb.  2. 

directed  to  the  whole  heathen  world,  and  islands  is  a  poetical  variation  for 
lands  or  at  the  most  for  maritime  lauds  or  sea-coasts.  Silence  in  this  con- 
nection implies  attention  or  the  fact  of  listening,  which  is  expressed  in  Job 
xxxiii.  31.  The  imperative  form  at  the  heginning  gives  an  imperative  sense 
likewise  to  the  future,  which  might  therefore  be  translated  let  tlum  approach, 
&c.  There  is  an  obvious  allusion  in  the  first  clause  to  the  promise  in  chap, 
xl.  31.  As  if  ho  had  said  :  they  that  hope  in  Jehovah  sh;ill  renew  their 
strength  ;  let  those  who  refuse,  renew  theirs  as  they  can. — The  particle 
then  makes  the  passage  more  graphic  by  bringing  distinctly  into  view  the 
successive  steps  of  the  process.  This  seems  to  recommend  the  explanation 
of  t32V*p  as  a  local  rather  than  an  abstract  noun.  The  same  judicial  or 
forensic  ligure  is  applied  to  contention  between  God  and  man  by  Job  (ix. 
19,  XX.  82).  Lowth's  paraphrase  of  this  verse  is  more  than  usually  languid 
and  diluted  :  c.  (j.  let   the  distant   nations  repair   to   me  uilh   new  force  0/ 

mind let  us  enter  into  solemn  debate.     The  same  writer  reads 

1tJ'^^^^  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  {iyy.aitl!!^i<s(if),  and  says  that  the 
same  mistake  occurs  in  Zeph.  iii.  17.  But  the  Hiphil  of  t-'T^n  does  not  occur 
elsewhere,  and  the  common  text  is  confirmed  by  Aquila  {/.upvjgan)  and 
Symmachus  {aiXriaan),  as  well  as  by  the  other  ancient  versions. 

2.  Who  hath  raised  up  (or  auakened)  from  the  east  /  IHghteousness 
shall  call  him  to  its  foot  ;  it  shall  give  nations  before  him,  and  cause  him  to 
tread  upon  kings  ;  it  shall  give  (them)  as  dust  to  his  sivord,  and  as  driven 
stubble  to  his  bow.  The  simplest  construction  of  the  first  clause  is  that 
which  assumes  an  abrupt  transition  from  the  form  of  interrogation  to  that 
of  prediction.  The  speaker,  as  it  were,  interrupts  his  own  question  before 
it  is  complete  in  order  to  supply  what  must  otherwise  be  presupposed. 
Instead  of  going  on  to  ask  who  brought  the  event  to  pass,  he  pauses  to 
describe  the  event  itself.  The  same  sense  is  obtained,  but  with  a  change 
of  form,  by  supplying  a  relative  and  continuing  the  irtterrogation.  Who 
raised  up  from  the  east  [him  uhom)  righteousness,  &,c.  The  old  construction, 
which  makes  righteousness  the  object  of  the  verb,  and  regards  it  as  an  ab- 
stract used  for  a  concrete  (righteousness  for  righteous  otw),  is  wholly  arbitrary 
and  at  variance  with  the  Masoretic  accents.  Gesenius  and  the  later  Ger- 
man writers  understand  the  clause  to  mean  whom  rivtorg  meets  at  every  step. 
This  new  sense  of  ?"})(  is  entirely  gratuitous,  and  violates  the  fundamental 
laws  of  lexicography,  by  multiplying  senses  without  any  necessity  and  con- 
founding the  definition  of  a  term  with  its  application.  Here  and  elsewhere 
PnX  means  the  righteousness  of  God  as  manifested  in  his  providence,  his 
dealings  with  his  people  and  their  enemies.  (See  chap.  i.  '27,  vol.  i.  p.  93.) 
Because  it  suggests,  in  such  connections,  the  idea  of  its  consequences 
or  effects,  it  no  more  follows  that  this  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word, 
than  that  xvrath  means  suffering,  because  the  wrath  of  God  causes  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  guilty.  Another  objection  to  this  version  of  the  clause  is  its 
giving  ^"^^  the  less  usual  sense  of  meet,  and  ^^??"?  that  of  at  every  step, 
which  is  certainly  not  justified  by  the  obscure  and  dubious  analogy  of  Gen. 
XXX.  30,  especially  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  usage  of  the  same 
phrase  elsewhere  to  mean  in  the  footsteps,  train,  suite,  or  retinue  of  any 
one.  (See  1  Sum.  xxv.  42  ;  Job  xviii.  11  ;  Hab.  iii.  5.)  In  his  lexicons, 
Gesenius  admits  the  idea  to  be  that  of  following,  and -actually  introduces 
that  verb  into  the  clause,  a  virtual  concession  that  his  own  (ran>*lation  of 
*<^p'  is  at  variance  not  only  with  usage  but  the  context.  To  call  to  one's 
foot  is  a  Hebrew  idiom  for  calling  to  one's  service,  or  summoning  to  take  a 
place  among  one's  followers.     This  act  is  hero  ascribed  to  the  divine  right- 


Ver.  3.]  ISAIAH  XLI.  119 

eousness  as  a  personified  attribute.  The  other  verbs  may  agree  with  the 
same  subject  or  directly  with  Jehovah. — In  the  last  clause  Gesenius  and 
the  later  Germans  make  the  sullixes  collective,  and  by  liis  swoid,  his  bou',_ 
understand  the  sword  and  bow  of  the  nations  or  their  kings.  As  the  modern 
writers  are  so  much  accustomed  to  reject  the  old  interpretations  with  con- 
tempt, it  may  not  be  amiss  to  mention  here,  that  this  construction  is  as  old 
as  Kimchi,  and  that  it  is  set  aside  by  Vitringa  as  an  expo&itio  violenta  qua; 
nihil  saiii  im/fert.  The  enallage  of  number  is  in  fact  too  violent  to  be 
assumed  without  necessity.  Viti'inga  himself  supposes  the  sword  and  bow 
to  be  those  of  the  conqueror,  and  to  be  described  as  like  dust  or  chaff  in 
rapidity  of  motion.  But  the  image,  which  is  that  of  dust  or  chaff"  driven 
by  the  wind,  is  always  used  elsewhere  in  a  passive  and  unfavourable  sense, 
never  as  expressive  of  activity  or  energy.  On  the  whole,  there  seems  to 
be  no  construction  more  free  from  objection  than  the  old  one  of  the  Eng- 
lish Version,  the  Targum  and  the  Vulgate,  which  gives  1^*  the  same  sense, 
the  same  subject,  and  the  same  object  as  in  the  preceding  clause.  The 
difficulty  which  arises  from  supposing  an  ellipsis  of  the  preposition  before 
sn-ord  and  how,  may  be  removed  by  taking  these  words  as  adverbial  or  quali- 
fying nouns,  a  Hebrew  idiom  of  constant  occurrence.  This  construction 
becomes  still  more  natural  if  we  understand  the  clause  to  mean  that  he 
makes  the  enemy  like  dust  or  chaff'  uith  or  hi/  means  of  his  sword  and  bow. 
In  that  case,  the  verb  may  be  construed  either  with  nin^  p"lV  or  the  con- 
queror himself.  The  construction  may  be  rendered  clearer  by  restoring 
the  Hebrew  collocation.  Kings  he  shall  subdue  {and)  shall  make  like  dust 
(tuith)  his  sword  and  like  driven  chaff  (with)  his  bow. — The  explanation  of 
the  futures  as  preterites  is  wholly  arbitrary,  and  even  the  descriptive  present 
appears  inadmissible  when  the  strict  sense  is  so  perfectly  appropriate. — 
The  question,  whose  appearance  is  predicted  in  this  verse,  has  been  always 
a  subject  of  dispute.  Eusebius,  Theodoret,  and  Procopius  understand  it  as 
describing  the  triumphs  of  the  true  religion,  or  the  gospel,  hero  called 
ricjliteousness.  Cyril  and  Jerome  apply  it  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself, 
as  the  Righteous  One,  or  the  Lord  our  Righteousness.  Cocceius  stands 
alone  in  his  application  of  the  verse  to  the  apostle  Paul.  The  Jews  make 
Abraham  the  subject  of  the  passage,  excepting  Abcn  Ezra,  who,  with  Vit- 
ringa and  all  the  latest  writers,  understands  it  as  a  prophecy  of  Cyrus.  The 
inappropriateness  of  the  terms  employed  to  our  Saviour  or  the  gospel,  to 
Abraham  or  Paul,  is  almost  self-evident,  and  equally  clear  is  its  appropriate- 
ness to  the  case  of  Cyrus.  The  argument  in  favour  of  the  latter  applica- 
tion, drawn  from  the  analogy  of  chaps,  xlv.  1,  xlvi.  11,  is  less  conclusive, 
because  he  is  there  expressly  named.  The  truth  appears  to  be  that  this  is 
a  more  general  intimation  of  a  great  eventful  movement  from  the  East, 
which  is  afterwards  repeated  with  specific  reference  to  Cyrus  and  his  con- 
quests. It  might  even  be  supppscd  without  absurdity  that  there  is  here  an 
allusion  to  the  general  progress  of  the  human  race,  of  conquest,  civilization, 
anil  religion,  from  the  East  to  the  West.  Umbreit  supposes  a  specific 
reference  to  the  course  of  the  sun,  from  which  the  name  of  Cyrus  was  de- 
rived, as  we  shall  see. 

3.  He  shall  pursue  them ;  he  shall  pa'is  (in)  peace  (or  S'j'ety) ;  a  path  with 
his  feet  he  shall  not  go.  There  is  the  same  objection  here  as  in  the  preced- 
ing verse  to  the  explanation  of  the  verbs  as  preterites  ;  but  most  interpre- 
ters, not  content  with  this,  make  the  future  in  the  last  clause  a  pluperfect 
{the  way  that  he  had  not  gone  with  his  feet).  This  method  of  translation 
involves  the  whole  subject  in  uncertainty.      If  the  past  and  the  futm-e 


120  ISAIAH  XLl.  Vkr.  4-7. 

senses  may  be  interchanged  at  pleasure  and  without  necessity,  the  interpre- 
ter may  make  the  author  say  what  he  pleases.  In  the  case  before  us,  J. 
D.  Michaelis  adheres  to' the  proper  future  sense,  and  explains  the  clause  to 
mean  that  he  shall  not  have  occasion  to  retrace  his  stops.  But  as  this, 
like  the  common  explanation  before  mentioned,  leaves  the  phrase  with  his 
feet  pleonastic  and  unmeaning,  the  preference  is  due  to  Ewald's  supposition 
that  the  clause  describes  the  swiftness  of  his  motions,  as  flying  rather  than 
•walking  on  foot.  This,  which  would  be  natural  and  striking,  even  in  itself 
considered,  is  coniirmed  by  the  analog}-  of  Paniel  viii.  5,  where  we  read 
that  an  he-goat  ccnne/rom  the  west  on  the  face  of  the  xchoh;  earth,  a?u/  touched 
not  tlu-  ijround. 

4.  Who  hath  wrought  ami  done  it,  calling  the  generations  from  the  begin- 
ning f  I  Jehorah,  the  first  and  with  the  last,  I  {avi)  he.  Another  con- 
struction of  the  verse,  preferred  by  the  latest  wTiters,  includes  the  last  part 
of  the  first  clause  in  answer  to  the  question.  Who  hath  wrought  and  dune 
it  f  He  that  calleth  the  generations,  &c.  But  besides  the  unequal  distribu- 
tion of  the  verse  which  thus  arises,  this  construction  makes  the  answer 
speak  of  God  both  in  the  first  and  second  person,  and  gives  to  the  indefi- 
nite Nip  the  sense  of  the  emphatic  K^f>^,  neither  of  which  departures  from 
the  usus  loquemli,  though  admissible  in  case  of  necessity,  ought  to  bo 
assumed  without  it. — Culling  the  generations  may  either  mean  calling  them 
into  existence  or  proclaiming  them,  i.e.  predicting  them;  probably  the 
latter,  since  the  event  itself,  although  it  proved  a  superhuman  agenc}-,  did 
not  prove  it  to  be  that  of  Jehovah,  which  could  only  be  established  by  the 
fulfilment  of  predictions  uttered  in  his  name.  With  the  last,  does  not 
simply  mean  the  hist,  which  is  the  form  employed  in  chap.  xli.  21-25,  xlvi. 
8-10,  but  coexistent  with  the  last,  a  mode  of  expression  which  would  seem 
to  imply  that  although  Jehovah  existed  before  all  other  beings,  he  will  not 
outlast  them  all.  i^-in  *:j^  is  explained  by  some  of  the  older  writers  as 
meaning  /  am  God  ;  by  the  latest,  /  am  the  same  {i.e.  unchangeable)  ;  but 
the  simplest  construction  is  the  common  one,  I  am  he.  i.e.  the  being  to 
whom  the  interrogation  has  respect,  I  am  he  nho  he  has  urowjht  ami  done  it. 
5.  The  isles  have  seen  it  and  are  afraid,  the  ends  of  the  earth  tretnble;  they 
have  approached  and  come.  Some  regard  this  as  a  description  of  the  eflect 
produced  by  the  foregoing  argument,  but  others  as  a  part  of  the  argument 
itself,  drawn  from  the  cfl'ect  of  the  appearance  of  the  person  mentioned  in 
ver.  2.  As  an  instance  of  the  length  to  which  specific  historical  inteqireta- 
tion  can  be  carried  by  the  new  as  well  as  by  the  old  school  of  inter]>reters, 
it  may  be  mentioned  that  Ilendewerk,  with  the  first  book  of  Herodotus 
before  him,  explains  islands  here  to  mean  the  Greek  states  in  the  west  of 
Asia  Minor, —  their  approach, — the  message  which  they  sent  to  Cyrus  after 
the  defeat  of  Chl'sus, — the  mutual  encouragement  described  in  the  next 
verse, — the  dehberations  of  the  I'anionion!  All  this,  however,  he  supposes 
to  be  here  described,  not  by  a  prophet  in  the  proper  sense,  but  by  a  con- 
temporary writer. 

G.  A  man  his  neighhour  {i.e.  one  another)  theg  uill  help,  and  to  hix 
brother  {imc)  irill  nag,  lie  strong !  This  general  description  is  then  filled 
up,  or  carried  out  into  detail  in  the  next  verse,  both  containing  a  sarcastic 
description  of  the  Miin  appeal  of  the  idolaters  to  the  i)rotectiou  of  their 
tutelary  deities. 

7.  And  the  carver  has  strcnglhnud  the  gilder,  the  smoother  with  the  ham- 
mer, the  smiter  on  the  anvil;  he  saga  (or  i«  saging)  of  the  solder,  It  is 
good :  and  he  has  streniftheiied  it   uith    nails;  it  shall  not  be  moved.      Tho 


Vek.  8,  9.]  ISAIAH  XLL  121 

sarcasm  consists  in  making  the  idolaters  dependent  upon  idols,  which  are 
themselves  dependent  upon  common  workmen  and  the  most  trivial  mecha- 
nical operations  for  their  form  and  their  stability.  Hence  the  particular 
enumeration  of  the  ditierent  artificers  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  these 

deities.  J.  D.  Michaelis  explains  Oy?  D?.n  to  mean  the  treader  on  the 
bellows,  i.e.  the  bellows-blower. — The  text  of  the  English  Version  has,  it 
is  reathj  for  the  soldering;  but  the  other  construction  is  now  universally 
adopted.  The  last  clause  implies  that  the  strength  of  the  idol  is  not  in 
itself,  but  in  the  nails  that  keep  it  in  its  place,  or  hold  its  parts  together. 

8.  And  thou  Israel  my  serviait,  Jacob  uliom  I  have  chosen,  the  seed  of 
Ahraham  my  friend.  The  prominent  idea  is  still  that  of  the  contrast  be- 
tween Israel  as  the  people  of  God,  and  the  heathen  as  his  enemies.  The 
insertion  of  the  substantive  verb  in  the  tirst  clause,  thou  art  Israel  my 
servant  (Vitringa),  or  thou  Israel  art  my  servant  (English  Version),  is  un- 
necessary. This  whole  verse  with  the  next  may  be  understood  as  a 
description  of  the  object  of  address,  or  of  the  person  to  whom  the  exhorta- 
tion in  ver.  10  is  directed.  The  two  names  of  Jacob  are  again  combined 
in  application  to  his  progeny.  Tiie  race  is  described  as  God's  servant  and 
his  elect,  or,  combining  the  two  characters,  his  chosen  servant,  chosen  to 
be  his  servant.  Vitringa  understands  this  last  term  as  including  the 
idea  of  a  worshipper  or  votary ;  and  Hitzig  compares  it  with  Abdastartus, 
a  servant  of  Astarte,  and  the  favourite  Ai-abic  name  Abdullah  or  a  wor- 
shipper of  Allah. — The  people  are  here  described  not  only  as  the  sons 
of  Jacob,  but  of  Abraham.  *?ni<  cannot  of  itself  denote  an  object  of 
divine  love,  as  it  is  explained  in  the  Septuagint  [ov  r,yd'rr,(ra),  nor  can  it  be 
both  active  and  passive,  amans  and  amatus,  as  Vitringa  supposes.  The 
latter  idea  is  implied  but  not  expressed.  The  same  honourable  title  is  be- 
stowed on  Abraham  in  2  Chron.  xx.  7  :  James  ii.  23,  and  in  the  common 
parlance  of  the  Arabs,  by  whom  he  is  usually  styled  <dll  Jjdjs.-  the  friend 
of  God,  or  absolutely,  \i\JC\  the  Friend. 

9.  Jhou  whom  I  have  (jrasped  fiam  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  from  its 
joints  (or  sides)  have  called  thee,  and  said  to  thee,  My  servant  [art)  thou 
I  have  chosen  thee  and  not  rejected  thee.  The  description  of  the  object  of 
address  is  still  continued.  The  essential  idea  here  expressed  is  that  of 
election  and  separation  from  the  rest  of  men,  a  bringing  near  of  those  who 
were  afar  oflf.  Interpreters  have  needlessly  disputed  whether  the  vocation 
of  Israel  in  Abraham,  or  at  the  exodus,  is  here  particularly  meant ;  since 
both  are  really  included  in  a  general  description  of  the  calling  and  election 
of  the  people.  The  objection  that  Israel  distinguished  from  Abraham  in 
ver.  8,  is  of  no  weight  except  against  the  supposition  (if  maintahicd  by 
any)  that  Abraham  himself  is  here  the  object  of  address.  The  application 
of  analogous  expressions  to  the  exodus  from  Eg}'pt,  in  Deut.  xxxix.  10 ; 
Ezek.  XX.  5,  only  proves  that  this  was  one  of  the  great  crises  or  junctures 
in  the  progress  of  the  people,  at  which  their  election  or  vocation  was  de- 
clared, and  as  it  were  renewed.  The  question  in  what  sense  Egj'pt  could 
be  called  the  ends  of  the  earth,  is  as  trilling  as  the  answer  which  some  give 
it,  that  it  was  remote  from  Babylon.  The  phrase  in  question  is  a  common 
idiomatic  expression  for  remoteness,  often  used  without  reference  to  parti- 
cular localities  (see  chap.  v.  20,  xiii.  2).  The  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed 
is  identical  with  that  expressed  by  Paul  when  he  says  (Eph.  ii.  13),  i/j-sTi  o'l 
<K07i  IvTi^  iMay.^uM  iyy-j;  lyi'jriOrire.  The  translation  /  hare  l(dcen  is  inade- 
quate, the  Hebrew  verb  meaning  to  holdfast,  and  the  idea  of  removal  being 


122  ISAIAH  XLI.  [Ver.  10-12. 

rather  implied  than  expressed.  The  parallel  expression  (HTV??)  is  ex- 
plained by  Gcsenius  from  the  analogy  of  ''>*X,  side,  by  Maurer  from  that  of 

'''V^?,  a  Joint,  which  seems  to  be  also  presupposed  in  the  version  of  Sym- 
machus  (ayxwiwv).  The  rabbinical  interpretation,  chief  men,  is  founded  on 
the  analog}'  of  Exod.  ixiv.  11.  Somo  of  the  Jewish  writers  understand  IP 
as  meaning  in  spite  of,  others  in  preference  to ,  but  both  withont  authority. — 
liowth's  translation  of  TripKlp  as  a  future  is  entirely  arbitrary,  and  over- 
looks the  peculiar  Hebrew  idiom  of  saying  the  same  thing  positively  and 
negatively.     (See  chap.  iii.  9,  vol.  i.  p.  114.) 

10.  Fear  thou  not,  for  I  {nin)  with  thee  ;  look  not  around,  for  I  {aw]  thy 
(iod ;  I  have  streuythened  thee,  yea  I  have  helped  thee,  yea  I  have  upheld 
thee  7cith  my  riyht  hand  of  righteousness.  This  may  be  regarded  as  the 
conclusion  of  the  sentt-nce  beginning  in  ver.  8,  as  the  address  to  which  the 
two  preceding  verses  are  an  introduction. — Vitringa  derives  VP>'^''^  from  i^1"^ 
iMvald  makes  it  an  orthographical  variation  of  n^np'^!!  (Gen.  xxiv.  21), 
Gescnius  and  most  other  modem  \\Titers  make  it  the  Hitbpael  of  n3;L'\  and 
explain  it  to  mean,  do  nut  look  around  fearfully  as  if  for  help.  Hitzig 
compares  it  with  the  Homeric  verb  caTra/vw. — The  ^^,  which  might  bo 
rendered  nay  more,  seems  to  give  the  last  clause  the  form  of  a  climax, 
although  such  a  progression  cannot  easily  be  traced  in  the  thoughts.  The 
English  Version,  which  adheres  to  the  strict  translation  of  the  preterites  in 
ver.  9,  here  gratuitously  employs  the  future  form,  which  wholly  changes  the 
complexion  of  the  sentence.  It  is  not  a  simple  promise,  but  a  reference  to 
what  God  had  already  done  and  might  therel'ore  be  expected  to  do  again. 
The  present  form  employed  by  Rosenmiiller  [corrohoro  te)  is  less  objection- 
able than  the  future,  but  in  no  respect  preferable  to  the  strict  translation. — 
Equally  arbitrary  is  the  introduction  by  the  later  Germans  of  their  favourite 
idea  that  p"}^  in  these  prophecies  means  prosperity  or  success,  whereas  it 
does  not  even  suggest  that  notion,  except  so  far  as  it  flows  from  the  right- 
eousness of  God  as  an  efl'ect  from  its  cause.  Hitzig's  translation  t/raciotts 
arm  is  at  once  a  departure  from  the  old  and  the  new  interpretation.  It  is 
not  even  necessary  to  assume  with  Lowth  that  P^V  here  denotes  the  faith- 
fulness of  God,  and  to  translate  accordingly  7ny  faithful  riyht  hand.  The 
true  sense  is  the  strict  one  of  righteousness  or  justice,  the  appeal  to  which 
in  such  connections  has  already  been  explained.  (See  above,  on  ver.  2.) 
The  rifjht  hand  of  my  riijhteousness  supposes  the  attribute  to  be  personified  ; 
a  supposition  which  may  be  avoided  by  referring  the  sufRx  to  the  whole 
complex  phrase,  my  riyht  hand  of  ricfhleousmss  or  just  riyht  hand. — As 
specimens  of  ultra-specilic  exposition,  without  any  fouiidati(tn  in  the  text, 
it  may  bo  mentioned  that  Knobel  understands  this  as  an  exhortation  to  the 
Jewish  exiles  not  to  be  afraid  of  C}TUS. 

11.  Lo,  ashamed  and  confounded  sJmH  be  all  those  incensed  (or  inflamtd) 
against  thee;  they  shall  be  as  nothing  (or  as  though  tluij  tcere  not),  and 
destroyed  shall  be  thy  7ncn  of  strife  (or  they  that  strive  tcith  thee).  Not  only 
shall  Israel  himself  escape,  but  his  enemies  shall  perish.  To  be  ashamed 
and  confounded,  hero  as  usual,  includes  the  frustration  of  their  plans  and 
disapi^ointment  of  their  hopes.  On  the  meaning  of  as  nothing,  see  al>ove, 
p.  lOS.  The  construction  of  the  phrase  thy  men  of  itrife,  is  the  same  as 
that  of  my  right  hand  of  righteousness  in  ver.  10. 

12.  Thou  shall  seek  them  and  not  find  them,  thy  men  of  quarrel;  they 
thall  he  as  nothing  and  as  nought,  thy  jmn  of  war,  {i.  r.  they  who  quarnlled 
and  made  war  with  thee).     The  first  eluuso  contains  a  common  Hebrew 


Ver.  13-15.J  ISAIAH  XLL  123 

figure  for  complete  disai^pcarancc  and  destruction.  (See  Ps.  xxxvii.  36 ; 
Jer.  1.  20  ;  Amos  viii.  12  ;  Hos.  v.  6).  t^N  aud  D^^5  strictly  denote  non- 
existence and  annihilation.     (See  above,  on  chap,  xl.  17). 

13.  For  I,  Jehovih  lli>j  (rod,  {am)  h'ddliuj  fast  thy  right  hand;  the  [one) 
saying  to  thee,  Fear  not,  I  have  helped  thee,  i.  e.  I,  who  command  thee  not 
to  fear,  have  already  helped  thee,  or  secured  thy  safety.  J.  D.  Michaelia 
gives  p'lnp  the  causative  sense  of  strengthening  ;  but  this  sense  is  rare, 
except  in  a  few  of  the  later  books,  and  the  other  is  recommended  here, 
not  only  by  the  general  agreement  of  interpreters,  but  by  the  analogy  of 
ver,  9. 

14.  Fear  not,  thou  worm  Juco'j  and  ye  men  of  Israel ;  I  have  helped  thee, 
saith  Jehovah,  and  thy  Redeemer,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The  same  en- 
couragement is  here  repeated,  but  with  a  direct  contrast  between  Israel's 
weakness  and  the  strength  of  God. — The  feminine  form  of  the  verb  has 
reference  to  that  of  the  noun  riy?in.  This  epithet  expresses  not  merely 
the  contempt  of  others,  as  in  Ps.  xxii.  7,  much  less  the  Babylonian 
oppression  of  the  Jews,  as  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  others  think,  but  the 
real  meanness  and  uuworlhiness  of  man,  as  in  Job  xxv.  (3.  As  the 
parallelism  seems  to  require  an  analogous  expression  of  contempt  in  the 
next  clause,  some  either  read  *DP  {dead  mtn)  with  Aquila  (rs()i/£>;r£?), 
Theodotion  (vsxso/),  aud  Jerome  {qui  mnrtui  estis  ex  Israel),  or  regard  \rip 
as  a  modification  of  that  word  denoting  mortals.  Yitringa  and  liitzig  gain 
the  same  end  by  explaining  it  as  an  ellipsis  for  "l^PP  ^DP,  men  of  number, 
i.  e.  few  men,  Ps.  cv.  12.  So  the  Septuagint  has  oXiyoarog,  but  omits  ivorm 
altogether,  Ewald  completes  the  parallelism  in  a  very  summar}"-  manner, 
by  reading  ^J^^y'*  noi,  and  translating  it  yekrummtes  Israel.  Maurer,  on 
the  other  hand,  discovers  that  the  parallelism  is  'not  always  perfect,  and 
advises  the  reader  to  translate  it  boldly  {redde  inlrepide)  men  of  Israel, 
which  seems  to  be  the  simplest  and  most  obvious  course,  leaving  the  acces- 
sory'idea  of  fewness  or  weakness  to  suggest  itself — The  word  ?^?il,  rcd'-enier, 
would  suggest  to  a  Hebrew  reader  the  i'leas  of  a  near  kinsman  (Lev.  xxv. 
2i,  25)  and  of  deliverance  from  bondage  by  the  payment  of  a  ransom.  Its 
highest  application  occurs  here  and  in  Job  xix.  25.  The  reference  to  the 
Son  of  God,  although  it  might  not  be  perceptible  of  old,  is  now  rendered 
necessaiT  by  the  knowledge  that  this  act,  even  under  the  old  dispensation, 
is  always  referred  to  the  same  person  of  the  Trinity.  The  substitution  of 
the  future  for  the  preterite  by  the  English  and  some  other  Versions  has 
already  been  seen  to  be  gratuitous  and  arbitrary. 

15.  Behold  I  have  placed  thee  for  (t.  e.  appointed  thee  to  be,  or  changed 
thee  into)  a  threshing -si  edge,  sharp,  new,  j^ossessed  of  teeth  (or  edges) ;  thou 
shah  thresh  mountains  and  heat  {them)  small,  and  hills  like  the  chaff  shalt 
thou  place  (or  make).  The  erroneous  idea  that  he  simply  promises  to  fur- 
nish Israel  with  the  means  of  threshing  mountains,  has  arisen  from  the 
equivocal  language  of  the  English  Version,  /  will  make  thee,  which  may 
either  mean,  /  ivill  make  for  thee,  or  will  make  thee  to  become,  whereas  the 
last  sense  only  can  by  any  possibility  be  put  upon  the  Hebrew,  as  literally 
translated  above.  The  oriental  threshing  machine  is  sometimes  a  sledge  of 
thick  planks  armed  with  iron  or  sharp  stones,  sometimes  a  system  of  rough 
rollers  joined  together  like  a  sledge  or  dray.  Both  kinds  are  dragged  over 
the  grain  by  oxen,  (See  Robinson's  Palestine,  iii.  p.  143.) — Pi^"?  is  pro- 
perly to  crush,  pound  fine,  or  pulverize;  ri1*3*5)  strictly  denotes  mouths; 
but  like  the  primitive  noun  from  which  it  is  derived,  it  is  sometimes  applied 
to  the  edge  of  a  sharp  instrument,  perhaps  in  allusion  to  the  figure  of 


Iii4  ISAIAH  ALL  [Vi-.r.  lO-lO. 

deTouring.  Hero  it  signifies  the  edges,  blades,  or  teeth,  with  which  the 
threshing- wain  is  armed.  The  reduplicated  form  is  supposed  to  denote  the 
number  of  such  parts  by  Ewald  (yiehpilzig)  and  Knobel  {vielschneidig). 
The  hteral  sense  of  7J?3  is  possessor,  owner.  There  set  ms  to  be  no  ground 
for  the  common  assumption  that  hills  and  mountains  are  sptcitic  emblems 
here  for  States  or  goveniments.  The  image  presented  is  the  strange  but 
strong  one  of  a  down- trodden  worm  reducing  hills  to  powder,  the  essential 
idea  being  that  of  a  weak  and  helpless  object  overcoming  the  most  dispro- 
portitmate  obstacles,  by  strengtli  derived  from  another. 

1(5.  T/iort  shaU/an  (or  winnotv)  them,  and  a  wind  ahaU  take  them  vp^ 
and  a  whirlwind  shall  sctttter  them,  and  thou  shalt  joy  in  Jehovah,  in  the 
JJohj  One  of  Israel  shall  thou  kast  {or  glory).  The  figure  of  the  preced- 
ing verse  is  here  earned  out  and  completed.  The  mountains,  having  been 
completely  threshed,  are  winnowed,  in  the  usual  oriental  mode,  by  being 
thrown  to  the  wind.  Israel,  on  the  other  hand,  is  safe,  not  through  his 
own  strength  but  in  that  of  his  protector,  in  uhom,  i.  e.  in  his  relation  to 
whom,  he  finds  his  highest  happiness  and  honour.  The  writer's  main  de- 
sign is  eudently  still  to  exhibit  the  contrast  between  God  and  his  people 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  idols  and  their  people  on  the  other. 

17.  The  suffering  and  tin'  poi.r  [are)  seeking  water,  and  it  is  not  {there  is 
none) ;  their  tongue  tvith  thirst  is  parched.  J  JJiovah  will  hear  (or  ajiswer) 
them,  {!)  the  God  cf  Israel  will  not  forsake  them.  The  first  clause  describes 
the  need  of  a  divine  interposition,  the  last  the  interposition  i(self.  The 
images  are  so  unlike  those  of  the  foregoing  verse  that  they  might  seem  to 
be  unconnected,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  whole  passage  is  entirely  meta- 
phorical. Thirst  is  a  natural  and  common  metajihor  for  sufl'ering.  Those 
who  restrict  the  verse  to  the  Babylonish  exile  are  divided  on  the  question 
whether  it  literally  describes  the  hardships  of  the  journey  through  the  wilder- 
ness, or  metaphorically  those  of  the  cajitivity  itself,  lioth  suppositions  are 
entirely  arbitrary,  since  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  deprive  the 
passage  of  its  genuine  and  full  sense  as  a  general  promise,  tantamount  to 
saying.  When  my  people  feel  their  need,  I  will  be  presi-nt  to  supply  it. 
Such  a  promise  those  in  exile  could  not  fail  to  find  appropriate  in  their  case ; 
but  it  is  equally  appropriate  in  others,  and  especially  to  the  glorious  deliver- 
ance of  the  church  from  the  fetters  of  the  old  economy,  '13^  is  not  to  hear 
in  general,  but  to  hear  prayer  in  a  favourable  sense,  to  answer  it.  The 
conditional  turn  given  to  the  sentence  in  our  version  {when  the  poor  and 
needy  srek,  <tc.)  is  substantially  correct,  but  a  needless  departure  from  the 
form  of  the  original. 

18.  /  M/7/  open  upon  hare  hills  stremns,  ami  in  the  midst  of  ralhys  foun- 
tains;  I  uill  place  the  desert  for  {i.e.  convert  it  into)  a  fi-xd  of  tcater,  and  a 
dry  land  /or  (or  into)  springs  of  water.  The  same  figure  for  entire  and 
joyful  change  occurs  in  chap.  xxx.  'if),  and  chap.  xxxv.  7,  and  with  its  op- 
posite or  converse  in  Ps.  cvii.  38,  8',.  It  is  now  commonly  admitted  that 
D"Qs^'  includes  the  idea  of  barrenness  or  nakedness.  Compare  ngp'3  from  the 
same  root  (chaj).  xiii.  2). 

I'.l.  /  utU  gire  m  the  wilde7'ness  adar.  acacia,  and  myrtle,  and  oil- tree  ; 
I  will  place  in  the  d(8ertfir,  pine,  and  box  together.  The  main  idea,  com- 
mon to  all  explanation  of  this  verse,  is  that  of  trees  growing  where  they 
never  grew  before.  It  is  comparatively  unimportant  therefore  to  identify 
the  species,  although  J.  D.  Micliaelis  supposes  them  to  have  been  selected 
because  such  as  do  not  naturally  grow  together.  With  respect  to  the 
cedar  and  the  myrtle  there  is  no  doubt.     Vitringa  regards  nCK'  (which  has 


Ver.  20-23.]  ISAIAH  XLI.  125 

no  and  btforc  it)  as  an  epithet  of  0?<,  and  translates  it  cedrus  pnatan- 
tissima.  Since  Lowth,  however,  it  has  been  commonly  regarded  as  the 
Hebrew  name  of  the  acacia,  a  thorny  tree  <,'rowing  in  Arabia  and  Egypt. 
(See  llobinsou's  Palestine,  vol.  ii.  p.  349). — By  the  oil-tree  is  meant  the 
oleaster  or  wild  olive,  as  distinguished  from  the  H^T  or  cultivated  tree  of  the 
same  species.  For  the  dirterent  explanations  of  ^'1"i?,  see  vol.  i.  p.  290.  Ac- 
cording to  the  latest  authorities,  "'i77^  is  neither  the  pine,  the  elm,  nor  the 
plane-tree,  but  the  ilex,  holm,  or  hard  oak,  so  called  from  "ID'I  to  endure  or 
last.  By  the  same  writers  "i-ltJ'XJii  is  understood  to  be  a  species  of  the  cedar  of 
Lebanon,  so  called  from  its  erectness  and  loftiness. 

20.  That  then  '"'^.V  ^<'^'  "'"'  l^noiv,  a)id  consider,  and  understand  tor/ether, 
that  the  hand  of  Jehovah  hath  done  this,  and  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  hath 
treated  it.  The  verbs  in  the  first  clause  may  refer  to  men  in  general,  or  to 
those  immediately  concerned  as  subjects  or  spectators  of  the  change  de- 
scribed. •1'^''?^'^,  they  may  place,  seems  to  be  an  elliptical  expression  for 
27  •lO^JJ'J  may  place  their  heart,  i.  e.  apply  their  mind,  or  give  attention. 

There  is  no  need  of  introducing  2?  into  the  text,  as  Lowth  does,  since  the 
very  same  ellipsis  has  been  pointed  out  by  Kocher  in  Judges  xix.  ?0.  Still 
less  ground  is  there  to  amend  the  text  with  Houbigant  by  reading  •Itiib'* 
[inay  he  astonished). — There  is  a  climax  in  the  last  clause  :  he  has  not  only 
done  it  but  created  it,  /.  e.  produced  a  new  effect  by  the  exertion  of  almighty 
power. 

21.  Present  your  cause  (literally  briny  it  near  or  cause  it  to  approach,  i.  e. 
into  the  presence  of  the  judge),  saith  Jehovah  ;  briny  forioard  your  defences 
(or  strong  reasons),  saith  the  kiny  of  Jacob.  The  Septuagint  changes  the  whole 
meaning  of  the  sentence,  by  making  it  a  simple  atlirmation  [your  judyment 
draweth  near). — Jerome  applies  the  last  clause  to  their  idols  :  accedant 
idola  vestra  qnce  putatis  essefortissima.  But  most  interpreters  refer  it  to 
the  arguments  by  which  they  wore  to  maintain  their  cause.  The  metaphor 
is  commonly  supposed  to  be  that  of  bulwarks  or  entrenchments  ;  but  this, 
as  Knobel  has  observed,  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  call  to  bring  them 
fonvard.  It  is  better  therefore  to  give  the  word  its  wider  sense  of  strength 
or  strong  thing. 

22.  They  shall  bring  fonvard  (or  let  them  briny  forward)  and  shcio  forth 
to  us  the  [thi7igs)  which  are  to  happen  ;  the  former  things,  ivhat  they  were, 
sheu)  forth,  and  we  loill  set  our  heart  (apply  our  mind,  or  pay  attention  to 
them),  and  know  their  issue  ;  or  [else)  the  coming  (events)  make  us  to  hear. 
The  prescience  of  future  events  is  here  appealed  to  as  a  test  of  divinity. 
(Compare  Deut.  xviii.  22,  Jer.  xxviii.  9,  and  chap,  xliii.  12,  below). 
Vitringa,  Lowth,  and  others,  understand  by  former  things  a  proximate 
futurity ;  but  the  antithesis  between  this  and  coming  things  shews  that  the 
former  must  mean  prophecies  already  fulfilled,  or  at  least  already  published. 
They  are  required  to  demonstrate  their  foreknowledge,  either  by  shewing 
that  they  had  predicted  something,  or  by  doing  it  now.  Knobel's  question 
whether  toe  and  ns  mean  God  alone  or  God  and  the  Prophet  together,  is  not 
in  the  best  taste  or  particularly  reasonable,  since  the  whole  idea  which  the 
text  conveys  is  that  of  two  contending  parties  at  a  judgment-seat.  They 
means  the  party  of  the  false  gods  and  their  worshippers,  we  that  of  Jehovah 
and  his  people. 

23.  Sliew  forth  the  (things)  to  come  hereafter,  and  we  ivill  know  that  ye 
are  gods  ;  yes,  ye  shall  do  good  or  evil,  and  we  vnll  look  about  and  see  toge- 
ther.    The  subjunctive  construction,  that  we  may  know,  gives  the  sense  of 


120  ISAIAH  XL/.  [Ver.  24,  25. 

the  original,  but  with  a  needless  change  of  form.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  the  imperative  translation  of  the  futures  in  the  next  clause  {do  good,  do 
evil).  The  use  of  the  disjunctive,  on  the  other  hand,  is  rendered  almost 
imavoidable  by  an  entire  dillirence  of  idiom,  the  Hebrews  constantly  em- 
jiloying  and  where  or  in  English  seems  essential  to  the  sense.  The  verbs 
in  this  clause  are  strictly  and  distinctly  understood  by  Vitringa,  as  relating 
to  the  reward  of  worshippers  and  the  punishment  of  enemies.  Henderson 
explains  the  clause  as  challenging  the  false  gods  to  perform  a  miracle.  But 
most  interpreters  retain  the  idiomatic  meaning  of  the  same  expressions  else- 
where, namely,  that  of  doing  anything  whatever,  good  or  bad.  (See  Jer.  x.  5, 
Zeph.  i.  12.)  Lowth  and  Henderson  understand  njj'rip'?  as  denoting  terror, 
and  change  the  pointing  so  as  to  derive  the  following  verb  from  N^)  to  fear. 
Gesenius  makes  the  former  verb  synonymous  with  "^^^Jl?  (2  Kings,  xiv.  8), 
let  us  look  pne  another  in  the  face,  i.  e.  confront  one  another  in  dispute  or 
battle.  It  is  much  more  probable,  however,  that  the  word  has  the  same 
sense  as  in  ver.  10  above,  where  it  seims  to  express  the  act  of  looking 
round  or  about  upon  those  present,  in  that  case  with  the  secondaiy  notion 
of  alaim  (as  looking  round  for  help),  but  in  this  case  with  that  of  inspec- 
tion or  consideration  (we  will  look  about  us).  Hitzig  refers  the  word  toge- 
ther to  the  two  acts  Avhich  the  verbs  express  ;  but  it  is  much  more  natural 
to  understand  it  as  denoting  that  the  two  contending  parties  unite  in  the 
same  act. 

24.  I.o,  ye  are  of  iioihiiu/  (or  less  than  iwth'm(i)  and  yoxir  uork  of  nought 
(or  less  than  nought)  ;  an  aloviination  {is  he  that)  chooscth  (or  tiill  choose) 
you.  This  is  the  conclusion  drawn  from  their  failure  or  refusal  to  accept 
the  challenge,  and  to  furnish  the  required  proof  of  their  deity.  For  the 
meaning  of  T^^D,  pce  above,  on  chap.  xl.  17.  The  parallel  term  V^^  is  re- 
garded by  some  of  the  Rabbins  as  synonymous  with  "^V???  {uorse  than  a 
riper)  ;  but  the  context  requires  an  expression  not  of  quality  but  of  non- 
entity. Solomon  Ben  Melek  makes  it  a  synonyme  of  D??<,  Yitringa  an 
orthographical  variation  of  the  same;  either  of  which  is  better  than  the  sup- 
position now  most  commonly  adopted  of  an  eiTor  in  the  text,  the  retention 
of  which,  even  supposing  its  occurrence,  it  would  not  be  very  easy  to  account 
for.  Augusti  and  Hitzig  understand  the  phnise  to  mean  of  nothing  or 
heJongiug  to  nothing,  which  Knobel  explains  as  tantamount  to  saying  that 
they  had  no  work,  or  in  other  words,  that  they  could  do  nothing. —  nrjJin 
is  a  strong  expression  often  used  to  describe  an  object  of  rehgious  abhor- 
rence.    On  the  choosing  of  gods,  compare  Judges  v.  8. 

25.  I  hare  raised  up  {one)  from  the  north,  and  he  has  come  ;  from  the 
rising  of  the  sun  shall  he  call  upon  my  name  ;  and  he  shall  come  j/;wn  princes 
as  «/  on  mortar,  and  as  a  potter  treadcth  clay.  This  is  correctly  understood 
by  Knobel  as  a  specific  application  of  the  general  conclusion  in  ver.  24.  If 
the  gods  of  the  heathen  could  do  absolutely  nothing,  it  w  as  impossible  that 
tbey  should  le  the  authors  of  any  one  remarkable  event,  and  especially  of 
tliat  on  which  the  Prophet  has  his  eye.  The  expressions  are  reniarkubly 
siniiliir  '.o  those  in  ver.  2,  so  that  the  Prophet  may  be  here  said  to  resume 
the  train  of  thought  wliich  had  been  interrupted  at  llie  end  of  ver.  4. 
Having  taken  occasion  to  describe  the  eflect  of  the  event  foretold  upon  the 
worshippers  of  idols,  and  from  that  to  shew  the  impotmce  of  the  gods 
theniselves,  he  returns  to  the  event  which  he  had  been  describing,  and  con- 
tinues his  description.  As  before,  he  takes  his  stand  at  an  intermediate 
point  between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  whole  prccess,  as  apjif  ars 
from  the  successive  introductiin  of  the  preterite  and  future.     This  peculiar 


Ver.  2G-28.  ISAIAH  XLI.  127 

feature  of  the  passage  is  obscured  if  not  effaced  by  rendering  them  all  alike, 
or  by  arbitrarily  distinguishing  between  the  tense  of  ^niTyn  and.  riS*l. 
With  the  single  substitution  of  he  has  come  for  he  shall  come,  the  common 
version  is  entirely  correct.  The  mention  of  the  north  and  east  together 
has  been  variously  explained,  Jei'ome  and  Luther  understand  the  clause 
to  mean,  that  he  was  called  from  the  north,  but  came  from  the  east. 
Eusebius,  Cyril,  and  Jerome  refer  the  fii"st  clause  to  the  nations,  and  the 
last  to  Christ,  which  is  entirely  gratuitous.  Calvin  refers  the  fii-st  to  the 
Chaldees  and  the  last  to  Cyrus,  which  is  better,  but  still  arbitrary.  J.  D. 
Michaelis  supposes  the  two  subjects  of  the  clause  to  be  Darius  or  Cyaxares 
the  Mede  and  Cyrus  the  Persian,  whose  respective  countries  lay  to  the 
north  and  east  of  Babylonia.  The  later  writers  modify  this  explanation  by 
referring  all  to  Cyrus,  here  considered  at  the  same  time  as  a  Persian  and  a 
Mede.  A  still  more  satisfactory  hypothesis,  perhaps,  is  that  the  subject  of 
this  passage  is  not  a  determinate  individual,  but  the  conqueror  indefinitely, 
who  is  not  identified  till  afterwards.  The  use  of  the  word  CJ^P,  which  is 
the  appropriate  description  of  the  Babylonian  nobles,  contains  a  covert 
intimation  of  the  particular  events  in  view.  Instead  of  shewing  that  the 
passage  is  of  later  date,  as  some  imagine,  it  affords  a  remarkable  example 
of  pi'ophetic  foresight.  The  act  of  calling  on  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  com- 
monly regarded  as  an  allusion  to  the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  or  at 
least  the  recognition  of  Jehovah  as  the  true  God,  on  the  part  of  Cyrus 
(Ezra  i.  2j. — Compare  the  figures  of  the  last  clause  with  chaps,  x.  6, 
XXV.  10. 

26.  Who  declared  from  the  herfinniiui ?  {Say)  and  we  ivill  know;  and 
beforehand,  and  ive  will  saij,  Eight  (or  True).  Nay,  there  was  none  that  told; 
nay,  there  was  none  that  uttered;  nay,  there  was  none  that  heard  your  words. 
Because  the  adverbs  of  time  do  not  necessarily  express  remote  antiquity, 
Knobel  infers  that  they  here  mean  since  the  first  ajqjearance  of  Cyrus.  But 
such  an  appeal  to  the  predication  of  what  one  man  could  foresee  as  well  as 
another  would  be  simply  ridiculous.  The  sense  of  p^^V  is  determined  by 
that  of  n^^  in  chap.  xUii.  9.  The  meaning  of  the  whole  verse  is  that  the 
events  in  question  had  been  foretold  by  Jehovah  and  no  other. 

27.  First  to  Zion,  Behold,  behold  them  !  and  to  Jerusalem  a  bringer  of 
good  nens  will  I  give.  This  very  peculiar  idiomatic  sentence  may  be  para- 
phrased as  follows  :  /  am  the  first  to  say  to  Zion,  Behold,  behold  them  ! 
and  to  give  Jerusalem  a  bringer  of  good  news.  The  simplest  construction 
is  to  make  the  verb  at  the  end  govern  both  clauses  ;  but  in  Enghsh  the 
sense  may  be  expressed  more  clearly  by  supplying  the  verb  say.  The  com- 
mon version  of  the  last  clause  is  correct,  but  that  of  the  first  appears  to 
have  no  meaning.  The  sense  is  not  the  first  shall  say,  but  /  first,  i.  e. 
before  any  other  god  or  prophet. 

28.  And  I  will  look,  hut  there  is  no  man  ;  and  of  these,  bid  there  is  no 
one  advising  (or  informing)  ;  and  I  loill  ask  them,  and  they  will  return  a 
word  (or  answer).  He  allows  them  as  it  were  another  opportunity  of 
proving  their  divinity.  In  the  first  two  clauses,  the  expectation  and  tho 
disappointment  are  described  together;  in  the  third,  the  expectation  only  is 
expressed,  the  result  being  given  in  the  following  verse.  First  he  looks, 
but  finds  not  what  he  seeks.  Then  again,  but  with  the  same  result.  Once 
more  he  interrogates  them  and  awaits  an  answer,  but  (as  the  next  verse 
adds)  discovers  them  to  be  impostors.  There  is  something  singularly  beau- 
tiful in  this  peculiar  structure  of  the  sentence,  which  is  wholly  marred  by 
the  indirect  constructions  that  arc  commonly  adopted,  that  when  I  asked  them 


128  ISAIAH  XLII.  (Ver.  1. 

they  could  answer  a  word,  or,  that  I  should  quest{o)t  them  and  they  return 
an  anstcer.  The  verse  is  full  of  laconic  and  elliptical  expressions,  which, 
however,  may  be  easily  completed,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  brief 
paraphrase.  /  xcill  lonJi  (once  more  to  see  whether  any  of  these  idols  or 
their  prophet  can  predict  the  future),  hut  there  is  no  one  (who  attempts  it). 
From  aimni'i  (all)  thrsf  (I  seek  for  a  response,  but  there  is  none).  Yet 
once  more  /  tvill  ask  them,  </7u/  (perhaps)  they  will  return  an  ansicer.  The 
same  application  of  the  verb  V^  to  the  prediction  of  the  future  occurs 
below  in  chap.  xliv.  2(5.  The  form  here  used  is  to  be  strictly  construed  as 
a  participle. 

25>.  Lo,  they  {are)  all  nnught,  nothiivj  their  worlcs,  ivind  and  emptiness 
their  molten  imai/es.  This  is,  at  once,  the  termination  of  the  sentence 
begun  in  the  last  duuse  of  the  verse  preceding,  and  the  summarj'  conclu- 
sion of  the  whole  preceding  controversy  as  to  the  divinity  of  any  gods 
except  Jehovah.  To  the  usual  expressions  of  nonentity  the  Prophet  adds 
two  other  strong  descriptive  terms,  viz.  wind  and  emptiness. 


CHAPTER   XLII. 

This  chapter  exhibits  to  our  view  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  i.e.  the 
Messiah  and  his  people,  as  a  complex  person,  and  as  the  messenger  or 
representative  of  God  among  the  nations.  His  mode  of  operation  is  de- 
scribed as  being  not  violent  but  peaceful,  vers.  1-5.  The  effects  of  his 
iulhience  are  represented  as  not  natural  but  spiritual,  vers.  C-9.  The 
power  of  God  is  pledged  for  his  success,  notwithstanding  all  appearances 
of  inaction  or  indifference  on  his  part,  vers.  10-17.  In  the  latter  portion 
of  the  chapter,  the  Church  or  Body  of  Christ,  as  distinguished  from  its 
Head,  and  representing  him  until  he  came,  is  charged  with  unfaithfulness 
to  its  great  trust,  and  this  unfaithfulness  declared  to  be  the  cause  of  what 
it  sufllered,  vers.  18-25.  Several  important  exegetical  questions  with 
respect  to  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  will  be  fully  canvassed  in  the  exposition 
of  the  chapter. 

1.  liihold  my  seit'dnt  !  I  will  hold  him  fast  ;  my  chosen  One  {in  wliom) 
my  soul  deli(jhts  ;  I  have  given  (or  2>wO  "'y  Spirit  upon  him  ;  judijnunt  to 
the  nations  shidl  he  cause  to  go  forth.  There  is  no  need  of  assuming  (with 
the  English  Version)  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative  twice  in  the  same  clau.se. 
The  separate  construction  of  the  first  two  words,  as  an  introduction  to  the 
following  description,  makes  them  far  more  impressive,  like  the  rcce  homo 
(lit  0  av^pwrroi)  of  Jolm  xix.  5. — The  first  verb,  construed  as  it  is  here, 
signifies  to  hold  fast,  for  the  most  part  with  the  accessory  idea  of  holding 
np,  sustaining,  or  supporting.  Elect  or  chosen  does  not  mean  choice  or 
excellent,  except  by  implication  ;  directly  and  strictly  it  denotes  one  actually 
chosen,  set  apart,  for  a  definite  purpose. — "^V^  is  the  verb  applied  in  the 
Law  of  Moses  to  the  acceptance  of  a  sacrifice,  from  which  some  have  in- 
ferred that  there  is  here  an  alhision  to  expiatory  merit ;  but  this,  although 
admissible,  is  not  an  obvious  or  necessary  supposition. — IW  Spirit,  as  in 
all  such  cases,  we  arc  to  understand,  not  only  divine  influence,  but  the  divine 
person  who  exerts  it.  (See  vol.  i.  pp.  12H,  210.) — Tlie  iise  of  the  phrase 
on  him,  where  in  him  might  have  seemed  more  natural,  is  probably  in- 
tended to  suggest  the  idea  of  descent,  or  of  an  influence  from  heaven. — 
The  last  clause  is  understood  by  Grot  ins  as  denoting  that  the  person  hero 
described  should  denounce  the  penal  judgments  of  Jehovah  on  the  Medes 


Yer.  1.]  ISAIAH  XLII.  129 

ami  iJabyloniaus.  But  besides  the  unreasonable  limitation  of  the  words 
U)  tbosc  tv;o  nations,  this  explanation  is  at  variance  with  the  usage  of  the 
snij,'ular  l^SP'P  and  with  the  context,  which  describes  the  servant  of  Jeho- 
vah as  a  source  of  blessing  to  the  Gentiles.  The  same  objection  does  not 
lie  against  an  explanation  of  tJ2y'P  by  Clericus  as  meaning  justice  or  just 
government ;  but  this  is  too  restricted,  as  appears  from  the  subsequent 
context.  The  most  satisfiictory  interpretation  is  the  common  one,  which 
understands  this  word  as  a  description  of  the  true  religion,  and  the  whole 
clause  as  predicting  its  ditfusion.  The  office  thus  ascribed  to  the  servant  of 
Jehovah,  both  here  and  in  the  following  context,  as  a  teacher  of  the  truth, 
makes  the  description  wholly  inappropriate  to  Cyrus,  who  is  nevertheless 
regarded  as  the  subject  of  the  prophecy,  not  only  by  Saadias  among  the 
Jews,  but  by  HensJer,  Koppe,  and  even  Ewald,  though  the  last  combines 
this  application  with  another  which  will  be  explained  below.  Aben  Ezra, 
Grotius,  and  some  later  writers,  understand  the  passage  as  descriptive  of 
Isaiah  himself ;  and  this  hypothesis  is  modified  by  Do  Wette,  and  Gese- 
nins  in  his  Commentary,  so  as  to  embrace  all  the  prophets  as  a  class. 
Besides  the  objection  to  the  first  of  these  opinions,  somewhat  llippantly 
alleged  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  if  Isaiah  had  thus  spoken  of  himself,  he 
would  have  proved  himself  a  madman  rather  than  a  prophet,  it  may  be 
objected  to  the  whole  hj'pothesis,  that  the  prophets  of  the  old  dispensation 
are  invariably  represented  as  the  messengers  of  God  to  the  Jews  and  not 
the  Gentiles.  And  the  same  thing  is  still  more  emphatically  true  of  the 
Levitical  priesthood.  Of  some,  but  much  less  weight  is  the  objection  to  the 
later  form  of  the  same  theory,  that  the  collective  sense  which  it  puts  upon 
the  phrase  is  neither  natural  nor  countenanced  by  any  satisfactory  analog}'. 
There  is,  indeed,  as  all  admit,  such  a  collective  use  of  the  phrase,  servant 
of  Jehovah,  in  application  not  to  any  rank  or  office  or  profession,  but  to 
Israel,  the  chosen  people,  as  such  considered.  Of  this  usage  we  have 
already  had  an  example  in  chap.  xli.  8,  and  shall  meet  with  many  more 
hereafter.  The  distinction  between  this  application  of  the  title  and  the  one 
which  De  Wette  proposes,  is,  that  in  the  fonner  case  the  national  pro- 
genitor is  put  by  a  natural  metonymy  for  his  descendants,  whereas  there 
is  no  such  individual  prophet  (not  even  Moses)  in  whom  the  whole  succes- 
sion is  concentrated,  either  by  natural  association  or  by  established  usage. 
A  third  objection  to  this  theory  may  be  drawn  from  the  analogy  of  other 
places,  where  the  same  great  servant  of  Jehovah  is  described,  not  only  as 
a  suflerer,  but  as  an  atoning  sacrifice.  Even  admitting  the  gratuitous 
assumption,  that  the  prophets,  as  a  class,  were  habitually  subject  to 
malignant  persecution,  the  representation  of  these  sufferings  as  vicarious 
and  expiatory  w^ould  be  forced  and  arbitrary  in  itself,  as  well  as  contra- 
dicted by  the  tenor  of  Scripture.  This  last  objection  also  lies  against  the 
exclusive  appHcation  of  the  title  to  Israel  as  a  people,  or  to  the  pious  and 
believing  portion  of  them,  which  has  been  maintained  by  various  writers 
from  Solomon  Jarchi  down  to  Knobel,  who  supposes  that  the  servant  of 
Jehcjvah  sometimes  means  the  whole  body  of  the  Jews  in  exile  who  ex- 
ternally adhered  to  the  w^orship  of  Jehovah,  sometimes  the  real  spiri- 
tual Israel  included  in  this  number.  But  the  representation  of  the 
Je\>ish  nation  as  atoning  for  the  sins  of  the  Gentiles,  or  of  the  pious 
Jews  as  atoning  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  nation,  is  without  analogy  in 
any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  objections  which  have  now 
been  stated  to  these  various  hypotheses  may  negatively  serve  to  rccom- 

VOL.  II.  1 


130  ISAIAH  XLIL  :Ver.  1. 

mend  the  one  adopted  in  the  Tar^'um  and  by  Kinichi  and  Abarbcnel, 
who  rtpreseuts  the  champions  of  the  others  as  struck  with  judicial 
bhudness.  This  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  of  tne  great 
majority  of  Christian  writers,  is  tliat  the  servant  of  the  Lord  is  the  Messiah. 
The  lengths  uf  paradoxical  extravagance  to  which  the  unbelieving  critics 
are  prepared  to  go  rather  than  admit  this  sujjposition,  may  be  learned 
from  Kiiobel's  positive  assertion,  that  the  Old  Testament  Messiah  is  no- 
where represented  either  as  a  ter.cher  or  a  suflerer,  and  that  the  later 
chapters  of  Isaiah  contain  no  allusion  to  a  Messiiih  at  all.  In  favour  of 
the  Messianic  exposition  may  be  urged  not  only  the  tradition  of  the  Jewish 
Church  already  cited,  and  the  perfect  facility  with  which  this  hypothesis  at 
once  accommodates  itself  to  all  the  requisitions  of  the  passages  to  which  it  is* 
applied,  but  also  the  explicit  and  repeated  application  of  these  passages  to 
Jesus  Christ  in  the  New  Testament.  These  applications  will  be  noticed 
seriatim  as  the  texts  successively  present  themselves.  To  this  first  verse 
there  are  seveml  allusions  more  or  less  distinct  and  unequivocal.  Besides 
the  express  citation  of  it,  with  the  next  three  verses  in  Mat.  xii.  19-21, 
there  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  its  terms,  or  rather  a  direct  application  of 
them  made  by  God  himself,  in  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  our 
Saviour  at  his  baptism,  and  in  the  words  pronounced  from  heaven  then  and 
at  the  time  of  his  transfiguration  :  This  is  mtj  hcUtvcd  Son  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased  (Mat.  ii.  17,  xvii.  o).  The  connecting  link  between  the  Servant 
of  Isaiah  and  the  Son  of  Matthew,  is  afforded  by  the  caT;  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  which  includes  both  ideas.  According  to  tlie  explanation  which  has 
just  been  given,  vio;  is  neither  a  translation  of  *l?y,  nor  a  perversion  of  its 
meaning,  but  a  clearer  designation  of  tlie  subject  of  the  prophecy.  That 
Christ  was  sent  to  the  Jews  and  not  the  Gentiles,  is  only  true  of  his 
personal  ministry  and  not  of  his  whole  work  as  continued  by  his  followers, 
who  were  expressly  commissioned  to  go  into  all  the  world,  to  make  dis- 
ciples of  all  nations,  the  only  restriction  imposed  being  that  of  heiiinnin;/  at 
Jeiusalem.  It  only  remains  to  be  considered,  whether  this  ai>plication  of 
the  title  and  the  description  to  our  Saviour  is  exclusive  of  all  others,  as  its 
advocates  commonly  maintain.  This  inquiry  is  suggested  by  the  fact, 
which  all  interpreters  admit,  that  Israel,  the  chosen  people,  is  not  only 
called  by  this  same  name,  but  described  as  having  some  of  the  samo 
attributes,  not  only  elsewhere,  but  in  this  very  context,  and  especially 
in  vers.  19,  20,  of  this  chapter,  where  any  other  explanation  of  the  terms, 
as  we  shall  see,  is  altogether  inadmissablo.  Assuming,  then,  that  the 
Messiali  is  the  servant  of  Jehovah  introduced  at  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter,  there  are  only  two  ways  of  accounting  for  the  subsequent  use  of 
the  same  language  with  respect  to  Israel.  The  first  way  is  by  alleging 
a  total  difference  of  subject  in  the  difl'eront  places  ;  which  in  fact  though 
not  in  form  is  to  decline  all  explanation  of  the  fact  in  question,  as  being 
either  needless  or  impossible.  That  such  a  twofold  application  of  equi- 
valent expressions  to  entirely  different  subjects  is  conceivable,  and  must 
in  certain  oases  bo  assumed,  there  is  no  need  of  denying.  I^ut  unless 
wc  abandon  all  att<'nipt  to  interpret  language  upon  any  settled  principle, 
wo  cannot  but  admit  that  nothing  short  of  exegetical  necessity  can  justify 
the  reference  of  the  snnie  descriptive  terms  to  different  subjects  in  one  and 
the  same  context.  If  then  thero  is  an  exegetical  hypothesis  by  which 
these  applications  can  be  reconciled,  without  d«)ing  violence  to  usage  or 
analog}-,  it  seems  to  be  clearly  entitled  to  the  preference.  Such  a  hypo- 
thesis, it  scAms  to  me,  is  ono  obscurely  stated  by  some  older  writers,  bat 


ViiR.  1.]  ISAIAU  XLII.  181 

which  may  be  more  satisfactorily  propounded  thus,  that  by  the  servant  of 
Jehovah  in  these  Later  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  we  are  to  understand  the 
church  with  its  Head,  or  rather  the  Messiah  with  the  church  which  is  his 
boiy,  sent  b}'  Jehovah  to  reclaim  the  world  from  its  apostiicy  and  ruin. 
This  agrees  exactly  with  the  mission  both  of  the  Redeemer  and  his  people 
as  described  in  Scripture,  and  accounts  for  all  the  variations  which  em- 
barrass the  interpretation  of  the  passages  in  question  upon  any  more 
exclusive  exegetical  hypothesis.  It  is  also  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  Deut. 
xviii.  where  the  promised  Prophet,  according  to  the  best  interpretation,  is 
not  Christ  exclusively,  but  Christ  as  the  Head  of  the  prophetic  body  who 
possessed  his  spirit.  Another  analogy  is  furnished  by  the  use  of  the 
phrase  Abraham's  seed,  both  individually  and  collectively.  He  whom  Paul 
describes  as  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  Moses  as  a  prophet  like  unto  him- 
self, in  a  personal  but  not  an  exclusive  sense,  is  described  by  Isaiah  as  the 
servant  of  Jehovah,  in  his  own  person,  but  not  to  the  exclusion  of  his 
people,  so  far  as  they  can  be  considered  his  co-workers  or  his  representa- 
tives. Objections  founded  on  the  want  of  agi'eement  between  some  of  these 
descriptions  and  the  recorded  character  of  Israel,  are  connected  with  a 
superficial  view  of  Israel,  considered  simply  as  a  nation  and  like  other 
nations,  except  so  far  as  it  was  brought  into  external  and  fortuitous  con- 
nection with  the  true  religion.  An  essential  feature  in  the  theory  proposed 
is  that  this  race  was  set  apart  and  organised  for  a  specific  purpose,  and 
that  its  national  character  is  constantly  subordinate  to  its  ecclesiastical 
relation.  There  is  precisely  the  same  variation  in  the  language  used 
respecting  it  as  in  the  use  and  application  of  the  term  s/ixXrjff/a  in  the  New 
Testament.  Israel  is  sometimes  described  as  he  was  meant  to  be,  and  as 
he  should  have  been ;  sometimes  as  he  actually  was.  The  name  is  some- 
times given  to  the  whole  race  and  sometimes  to  the  faithful  portion  of  it ; 
or,  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  it  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  the 
real,  sometimes  the  nominal  Israel.  The  apparent  violence  of  applying 
the  same  description  to  an  individual  person  and  a  body,  will  be  lessened 
by  considering,  that  the  former,  {.  e.  Christ  was  in  the  highest  and  truest 
sense  the  servant  of  Jehovah  and  his  messenger  to  man,  but  that  his  body, 
church,  or  people,  was,  and  is,  a  sharer  in  the  same  vocation,  under  the 
gospel  as  an  instrument  or  fellow-worker,  under  the  law  as  a  type  or  repre- 
sentative of  the  one  who  had  not  yet  become  visible.  Hence  the  same 
things  might  be  predicated  to  a  great  extent  of  both.  As  the  Messiah  was 
the  servant  an  1  messenger  of  God  to  the  nations,  so  was  Israel.  It  was  his 
mission  also  to  difl'asc  the  true  religion  and  reclaim  the  nations.  From 
the  very  first  it  was  intended  that  the  law  should  go  forth  from  Zion  and 
the  word  of  tho  Lord  from  Jerusalem.  (Chap.  ii.  3.)  The  national  restric- 
tions of  the  old  economy  were  not  intended  to  exclude  the  Gentiles  from 
the  church,  but  to  preserve  the  church  from  assimilation  to  the  Gentiles. 
A.11  the  world  m'ght  have  come  in  if  th.-y  would,  by  complying  with  the  terms 
prescribed ;  an  1  nothing  is  more  clear  from  t'le  Old  Testament  than  the 
fact  that  the  privileges  of  the  chosen  people  were  not  meant  to  be  restricted 
even  then  to  the  natural  descendants  of  Israel,  for  this  would  have  excluded 
proselytes  entirely.  Multitudes  did  embrace  the  true  religion  before 
Christ  came ;  and  that  more  did  not,  was  partly  their  own  fault,  partly  the 
fault  of  the  chosen  people,  who  neglected  or  mistook  their  high  vocation 
as  the  Messiah's  representative  and  as  Jehovah's  messenger.  If  it  be  asked, 
how  the  difi'erent  applications  of  this  honourable  title  are  to  be  distinguished 
so  as  to  avoid  confusion  or  capricious  inconsistency,  the  answer  is  as  follows :. 


132  ISAIAH  XlJl.  yS^&.  2. 

Wliere  the  terms  are  in  their  nature  appHcahle  both  to  Christ  as  the  Head 
and  to  his  church  as  the  I5udy,  there  is  uo  need  of  distinguishing  at  all 
between  them.  ^Vhere  sinful  imperfection  is  implied  in  what  is  said,  it 
must  of  coarse  be  applied  to  the  body  only.  Where  a  freedom  from  such 
imperfection  is  implied,  the  language  can  have  a  direct  and  literal  reference 
only  to  the  Head,  but  may  be  considered  as  descriptive  of  the  body,  in  so 
far  as  its  idea  or  design  is  concerned,  though  not  in  reference  to  its  actual 
condition.  Lastly,  when  anything  is  said  implying  deity  or  infinite  merit, 
the  application  to  the  Head  becomes  not  only  predominant  but  exclusive. 
It  may  further  be  observed  that  as  the  church,  according  to  this  view  of 
the  matter,  represents  its  Head,  bo  it  is  represented  by  its  leaders,  whether 
projjhets,  priests,  or  kings  ;  and  as  all  these  functions  were  to  meet  in 
Christ,  so  all  of  them  may  sometimes  be  particularly  prominent  in  prophecy. 
With  this  explanation,  the  hypothesis  proposed  may  be  considered  as  ap- 
proaching very  nearly  to  the  one  maintained  by  Umbreit  in  his  work  upon 
tiie  SeriMnt  of  God  {Kiiecht  Oottes,  Hamburg,  1840),  as  well  as  in  his 
Commentary  on  Isaiah.  A  similar  theory  is  broached  by  Ewald,  but  with 
this  essential  diflerence,  that  he  excludes  all  reference  to  Christ,  and  iden- 
tifies the  Messiah  of  these  prophecies  with  Cyrus.  A  correct  view  of  the 
manifold  and  variable  usage  of  the  title  '"ijn^  n^J?  is  given  by  Gesenius  in 
his  Thesaurus  and  the  later  editions  of  his  Lexicon.  How  far  the  theory 
here  stated  with  respect  to  the  njn^  Ijy  is  either  necessary  to  explain  the 
prophecies  or  rially  consistent  with  their  terms  can  only  be  determined  by 
a  specific  application  of  the  principle  to  the  successive  parts  of  the  descrip- 
tion. If  applied  to  this  first  verse,  it  would  determine  its  interjjretation,  as 
describing  Israel,  the  ancient  church,  to  be  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  servant 
of  Jehovah,  protected  and  sustained  by  Him,  enlightened  by  a  special  reve- 
lation, not  for  his  own  exclusive  use,  but  as  a  source  of  saving  light  to  the 
surrounding  nations.  At  the  same  time  it  would  jshew  him  to  possess  this 
character,  not  in  his  right,  but  in  that  of  another,  as  the  representative  and 
instrument  of  one  who,  though  he  was  with  God  and  was  God,  took  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  received  the  Spirit  without  measure,  that  he  might 
be  <i  U(jhl  to  Uyhten  the  (Jcntiles  as  ucU  as  the  (jlory  o/his  peojile  Israel.  (Luke 
ii.  82.)  The  reference  to  Christ  is  here  so  evident,  however,  that  there  is 
no  need  of  supposing  any  distinct  reference  to  his  people  at  all,  nor  any 
advantage  in  so  doing,  except  that  of  rendering  the  subsequent  verses  still 
more  significant,  as  descriptive,  not  only  of  his  personal  ministry,  but  of  the 
spirit  and  conduct  of  his  people,  both  before  and  after  his  appearance. 

2.  lie  shall  not  cry  (or  call  aloud),  and  he  shall  not  raise  (his  voice),  and 
he  shall  not  let  his  voice  he  heard  in  the  sticet  (or  abroad,  without).  The 
Vulgate  strangely  supplies  D*}?  after  ^\}"'.  [rum  uccipiet  personam),  and  so 
obtains  the  customary  technical  expression  for  respect  of  persons  or  judicial 
partiality.  This  construction,  which  was  probably  suggested  by  the  sup- 
posed analog}'  of  chap.  xi.  8,  4,  is  precluded  by  its  want  of  agreemi>nt  with 
what  goes  before  and  follows.  The  same  objection  lies,  though  in  a  less 
degree,  against  Cocceius's  construction  of  the  verb  as  a  reflexive  («e  efferet), 
which  is,  moreover,  not  grammatically  tenable.  It  is  not  even  necessary 
to  assume  an  ellipsis  of  the  noun  tv;jVe  in  the  first  clause,  although  this 
may  be  required  to  make  the  sense  clear  in  a  version.  The  Hebrew  con- 
struction is  continued  through  both  clauses,  i.  e.  both  verbs  govern  the  sjuiie 
noun.  lie  shall  not  raise  nor  suffer  to  be  luard  in  the  strict  his  voice.  Tho 
simple  meaning  of  the  verso  is,  he  shall  not  bo  noisy,  but  quiet.  Grotius 
supposes  an  allusion  to  the  fact,  that  angrv-  persons  often  speak  so  loud 


Ver.  3.J  ISAIAH  XLII.  .  133 

at  home  as  to  be  heard  in  the  street.  Clericus  justly  denies  any  special 
referonco  to  anger,  but  perhaps  goes  too  far  when  he  translates  y'PP'!,  dabit 
iiperam  ul  awlintur.  The  idea  seems  rather  to  be  that  of  suti'ering  the  voice 
to  be  heard  in  public  places.  As  applied  both  to  Christ  and  to  the  church, 
this  verse  describes  a  silent,  unostentatious  method  of  proceeding.  The 
quotation  in  Mat.  xii.  18  is  commonly  explained  as  referring  to  our  Saviour's 
mild  and  modest  demeanour ;  but  it  rather  has  respect  to  the  nature  of  his 
kingdom,  and  to  the  means  by  which  it  was  to  be  established.  His  for- 
bidding the  announcement  of  the  miracle  is  not  recorded  simply  as  a  trait 
of  personal  character,  but  rather  as  implying  that  a  public  recognition  of 
his  claims  was  not  included  in  his  present  purpose. 

8.  A  bruised  (or  crushed)  reed  he  lodl  not  break,  and  a  dim  ioick  he  will 
not  quench  ;  b>j  the  truth  ivill  he  bring  forth  jud(jment.  The  verbs  of  the 
first  clause  have  no  exact  ecpiivalents  in  English.  The  first  appears  to 
mean  broken  but  not  broken  off,  which  last  is  denoted  by  the  other.  Cleri- 
cus supposes  an  allusion  to  the  growing  plant,  which  may  be  broken  and 
yet  live,  but  if  entirely  broken  off  must  die. — The  common  version,  smok- 
ing Jlax,  is  that  of  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate.  The  Hebrew  noun  really 
denotes  tlax  (Exod.  ix.  31),  but  the  adjective  means  faint  or  dim  ;  so  that 
in  order  to  convey  the  meaning  in  translation,  the  former  must  be  taken  in 
the  specific  sense  oftvicic,  which  it  also  has  in  chap,  xliii.  17.  The  appli- 
cation of  these  figures  to  the  sparing  of  enemies,  or  the  indulgence  of  weak 
friends,  or  the  susteutation  of  sincere  but  feeble  faith,  is  too  specific  and 
exclusive.  The  verse  continues  the  description  of  the  mode  in  which  the 
Messiah  and  his  people  were  to  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  nations,  or  in 
other  words,  to  spread  the  true  religion.  It  was  not  to  be  by  clamour  or 
by  violence.  The  first  of  these  ideas  is  expressed  in  the  preceding  verse, 
the  last  in  this.  That  such  is  the  triie  import  of  the  words  is  clear  from 
the  addition  of  the  last  clause,  which  would  be  unmeaning  if  the  verse  re  • 
lated  merely  to  a  compassionate  and  sympathetic  temper.  That  this  verse 
is  included  in  Matthew's  quotation  (chap.  xii.  19),  shews  that  he  did  not 
quote  the  one  before  it  as  descriptive  of  a  modest  and  retiring  disposition. 
For  although  such  a  temper  might  be  proved  by  Christ's  prohibiting  the 
publication  of  his  miracles,  this  prohibition  could  not  have  been  cited  as  an 
evidence  of  tenderness  and  mildness.  The  only  way  in  which  the  whole 
quotation  can  be  made  appropriate  to  the  case  in  hand,  is  by  supposing  that 
it  was  meant  to  be  descriptive,  not  of  our  Saviour's  human  virtues,  but  of 
the  nature  of  his  kingdom  and  of  the  means  by  which  it  was  to  be  estab- 
lished. That  he  was  both  lowly  and  compassionate  is  true,  but  it  is  not 
the  truth  which  he  established  by  his  conduct  upon  this  occasion,  nor  the 
truth  which  the  evangelist  intended  to  illustrate  by  the  citation  of  these 
words.  As  well  in  their  original  connection  as  in  Matthew's  application  of 
them,  they  describe  that  kingdom  which  was  not  of  this  world  ;  which  came 
"not  with  observation"  (Luke  xvii.  20) ;  which  was  "neither  meat  nor  drink, 
but  righteousness  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Rom.  xiv.  17); 
which  was  founded  and  promoted,  not  by  might  nor  by  power,  but  by  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  ;  and  of  which  its  Founder  said  (John  xviii.  36),  Ifm;/  kingdom 
were  of  this  icorld,  then  would  my  servant>i  fight,  that  I  should  not  he  delirercd 
to  the  Jeu-f,  but  noir  is  mij  kingdom  not  from  hence.  And  again  (John  xviii. 
27),  when  Pilate  said  unto  him.  Art  thou  a  king  then?  Jesus  answered. 
Thou  sayest  (rightly)  that  I  am  a  king  ;  to  this  end  loas  I  born,  and  for  this 
cause  came  I  into  the  norld,  that  I  should  bear  witness  to  the  truth  ;  erery  one 
that  is  (f  the  truth  hcareth  my  voice.    How  perfectly  does  this  august  descrip- 


134  ISAIAH  X  LI  J.  [Ver.  4,  5. 

tion  tally  with  the  great  prophetic  picture  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  who 
was  to  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  nations,  and  in  doing  so  was  not  to  cry, 
or  raise  his  voice,  or  let  men  hear  it  in  the  streets,  not  by  brutal  force  to 
break  the  crushed  reed  or  quench  the  dim  wick,  but  to  conquer  by  healing 
and  imparting  strength.  This  passage  also  throws  light  on  the  true  sense 
of  the  somewhat  obscure  phrase  J^P.^1^,  by  showing  that  it  means  with  re- 
spect to  the  truth,  which  is  here  equivalent  to  saying  iy^/jc  trulh.  This  con- 
struction, by  presenting  an  antithesis  between  the  true  and  false  way  of 
bringing  forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles,  is  much  to  be  preferred  to  those 
constructions  which  explain  the  phrase  as  simply  meaning  in  truth,  (/".  e. 
truly),  or  in  permanence,  (i.  e.  surely),  or  unto  truth,  (t.  e.  so  as  to  establish 
and  secure  it).  AH  these  may  be  suggested  as  accessory  ideas ;  but  the 
main  idea  seems  to  be  the  one  first  stated,  namely,  that  the  end  in  question 
is  to  be  accomplished  not  by  clamour,  not  by  violence,  but  by  the  trulh. 

4.  He  shall  not  he  dim,  and  he  ahull  not  he  crushed,  until  he  shall  set 
juilijinent  in  the  earth,  and  for  his  law  the  isles  shall  wait.  He  shall 
neither  conquer  nor  be  conquered  by  violence.  This  verse  is  a  new  proof 
that  the  one  before  it  does  not  describe  mere  tenderness  and  pity  for  the 
weak.  The  antithesis  would  then  be,  he  shall  neither  be  unkind  to  the 
infirm  nor  infirm  himself.  On  the  other  hand,  the  sense  is  clear-and  per- 
tinent, if  ver.  3  means  that  he  shall  not  use  violence  towards  those  who  are 
weaker  than  himself,  and  ver.  4  that  he  shall  not  sufler  it  from  those  who 
are  more  powei-ful ;  or  rather  that  he  shall  not  subdue  others,  nor  himself 
be  subdued  by  force.  Some  interpreters  have  been  misled,  by  not  observing 
the  exact  correspondence  of  the  verbs  n^??  and  V-IT  with  the  adjectives 
t^>^'?  and  I'-l^*?.  The  same  oversight  has  led  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  to  derive 
1*^1)  from  "1"',  to  run,  and  to  understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  he  shall 
neither  be  remiss  nor  precipitate.  This  construction,  it  is  true,  makes  the 
clause  itself  more  antithetical  and  pointed,  but  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  an 
obvious  and  beautiful  antithesis  between  it  and  the  first  clause  of  ver.  8. — 
To  set  or  ]>lace  judijment  in  the  earth  is  to  establish  and  confirm  the  true 
religion. — By  his  law  we  are  to  understand  his  word  or  revelation,  con- 
sidered as  a  rule  of  duty. — Here  again  the  islands  is  a  poetical  expression 
for  the  nations,  or  more  specifically  for  the  transmarine  and  distant  nations. 
The  restriction  of  the  term  to  Europe  and  Asia  Minor  (J.  I).  Michaelis)  is 
as  false  in  geography  as  it  is  in  taste.. —  On  the  ground  that  the  heathen 
could  not  wait  or  hope  for  that  of  which  they  were  entirely  ignorant,  some 
understand  the  last  verb  as  meaning  they  shall  trust  [i.e.  after  they  have 
heard,  they  shall  believe  it).  Besides  the  preference  thus  given  to  a  secoud- 
arv-  over  a  primary  and  proper  sense,  the  general  meaning  of  the  clause, 
and  its  connection  with  what  goes  before,  appear  to  be  misapprehended. 
The  hope  meant  is,  not  so  much  subjective  as  objective.  The  thing  de- 
scribed is  not  the  feeling  of  the  Gentiles  towards  the  truth,  but  their  de- 
pendence on  it  for  salvation,  and  on  Christ  for  the  knowledge  of  the  truth 
itself.  For  his  law  the  isles  are  wailint/  (or  must  trait),  and  till  it  comes, 
they  must  remain  in  darkness. 

5.  Thus  siiilh  the  miijhty  (^God),  Jehorah,  creatimj  the  heavens  and 
St  retch  inff  them  out,  spread  I  ntf  the  earth  and  its  issues,  (jiriuff  hreulh  to  the 
people  on  it,  and  spirit  to  those  ualhinrf  in  it.  Ewald  refers  //i»/.>t  saith  to 
the  preceding  verses,  which  ho  supposes  to  be  here  described  as  the  words 
of  God  liimself.  But  as  the  following  verses  also  conUiin  tlie  words  of  God, 
there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  ordinary  usage  of  the  Scriptures, 
according  to  which  the  name  of  the  speaker  is  prefixed  to  the  report  of  what 


Ver.  C]  ISAIAH  XLII.  135 

he  sa3's.  We  may  indeed  assume  an  equal  connection  with  what  goes  before 
and  follows,  as  if  he  had  said,  Thus  hath  Jehovah  spoken,  and  he  speaks 
still  further. — The  appeal  is  so  directly  to  the  power  of  Jehovah,  that  the 
name  ?Xn,  which  is  expressive  of  that  attribute,  ought  not  to  be  resolved  into 
the  general  term  God.  (See  chap.  v.  IG,  vol.  i.  p.  136.) — The  substitution 
of  the  preterite  for  the  participle  in  tlie  English  Version  [he  that  created 
the  hearens,  and  stretched  them  out)  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  departure  from 
the  form  of  the  original,  but  hides  from  the  English  reader  the  allusion  to 
the  creative  power  of  God,  as  constantly  exercised  in  the  continued  existence 
of  his  works.  The  same  figure  is  exhibited  more  fully  in  chap.  xl.  22,  and 
the  places  there  referred  to.  (See  above,  p.  112, 113.) — This  clause  is  not 
a  scientific,  but  a  poetical  description.  To  the  eye,  the  heavens  have  the 
appearance  of  a  canopy  or  curtain,  and  the  verdant  surface  of  the  earth  that 
of  a  carpet.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supplying  a  distinct  verb  to 
govern  its  issues.  W},  though  originally  used  to  signify  the  beating  out  of 
metul  into  thin  plates,  has  acquired  in  usage  the  more  general  sense  of 
spreading  or  expanding,  and  is  equally  applicable  to  the  earth  as  an  appa- 
rently flat  surface,  and  to  its  vegetation  as  the  tapestry  which  covers  it. 
The  Prophet's  picture  is  completely  marred  by  making  Vi^l  mean  consoli- 
dating/, which  is  wholly  inappropriate  to  n^?;?^?:?^,  and  has  no  etymological 
foundation.  Even  VJ'P')  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  means  an  expanse; 
the  idea  of  a  firmament  comes  not  from  the  Hebrew,  but  the  ancient  ver- 
sions. No  single  English  word  is  so  appropriate  as  issues  to  express  both 
the  meaning  and  the  derivation  of  the  corresponding  one  in  Hebrew,  which 
denotes  the  things  that  come  out  of  the  earth,  its  produce,  growth,  or  vege- 
tation, with  particular  allusion  here  to  grass. — Here,  as  in  chap.  xl.  7,  the 
word  people  is  evidently  used  in  application  to  the  whole  human  race,  a  fact 
of  some  importance  in  the  exposition  of  what  follows.  Cocceius  alone 
supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  people  {i.e.  Israel)  and  the  rest  of  men. 
If  this  had  been  intended,  the  word  spirit  would  no  doubt  have  been  con- 
nected with  the  former.  By  the  side  of  this  may  be  placed  Kimchi's  notion, 
that  a  contrast  was  intended  between  men  and  brutes,  on  the  ground  that 
7\'ry^'^  is  limited  in  usage  to  the  foi-mer.  DD*pi3  iu  the  first  clause  of  this 
verse  is  explained  by  some  as  upluralis  majestaticus,  by  others  as  a  singular 
form  peculiar  to  the  f^^  verbs  and  their  derivatives.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  134.) 
— The  enumeration  of  Jehovah's  attributes  in  this  verse  is  intended  to 
accredit  the  assurances  contained  iu  the  context. 

G.  /  Jehovah  have  called  thee  in  rit^hteousness,  and  trill  lay  hold  of  thy 
hand  (or  hold  itfast),  and  will  kfep  thee,  and  will  give  thee  for  a  covenant  of 
the  people,  for  a  liyht  of  the  Gentiles. — The  act  of  calling  here  implies 
selection,  designation,  and  providential  introduction  to  God's  service. — In 
rif/hteousness,  i.e.  in  the  exercise  of  righteousness  on  God's  part,  including 
the  fulfilment  of  his  promises  as  well  as  of  his  threateiiings.  —  Unto  righteous- 
ness, i.e.  to  be  righteous,  is  an  idea  foreign  from  the  context,  and  one  which 
would  not  have  been  thus  expressed  in  Hebrew.  Lowth's  translation  {for 
a  righteous  purpose),  although  too  paraphrastical,  may  be  considered  as 
substantially  identical  with  that  first  stated.  Those  of  Gesenius  {to  salva- 
tion) and  Hitzig  {in  grace)  are  equally  gratuitous,  and  contrary  to  usage. — 
/  uilt  hold  thee  fast,  and  thereby  hold  thee  up,  sustain  thee.  (See  above, 
ver.  1.) — Lowth  and  Barnes  esteem  it  an  improvement  of  the  common  Eng- 
lish Version,  to  change  keep  into  preserve. — /  will  give  thee  for,  i.e.  create, 
appoint,  or  constitute  thee. — Hitzig  understands  by  DJ^  rin|  a  covenant- 
people    (Bundesvolk),   Ewald   a    mediatorial    people    (Mittelsvolk),    both 


136  ISAIAII  XLII.  [Vkr.  6. 

denoting  a  people  called  or  sent  io  act  as  a  mediator  or  a  bond  of  union 
between  God  and  the  nations.     But  tliis.  althouj^h  it  yields  a  j^ood  sense, 
is  a  German  and  English  rathor  than  a  Hebrew  construction,  the  instances 
in  which  a  prefixed  noun  qualities  the  other  being  ver}-  rare  and  dubious. 
This  objection  is  sufficient,  without  adding  that  the  phrase  as  thus  explained 
would  be  inapplicable  to  an  individual,  whereas  the  other  epithets  employed 
are  e(pially  appropriate  to  persons  and  communities.     Most  other  writers 
are  agreed  in  adhering  to  the  obvious  construction  and  in  understanding  by 
a  covenant  of  the  people  a  negotiator  between  God  and  the  people.    I'his  use 
of  covenant,  although  unusual,  is  in  itself  not  more  unnatural  or  forced  than 
that  of  lujht  in  the  next  phrase.    As  iujht  of  the  nations  must  mean  a  source 
or  dispenser  of  light  to  them,  so  covenant  of  peojtie,  in  the  very  same  sen- 
tence, may  naturally  mean  the  dispenser  or  mediator  of  a  covenant  with 
them.     The  only  reason  why  the  one  appears  less  natural  and  simple  than 
the  other,  is  that  liijht  is  habitually  used  in  various  languages  both  fur  the 
element  of  light  and  for  its  source  or  a  luminous  body,  whereas  no  such 
twofold  usage  of  the  other  word  exists,  although  analogies  might  easily  be 
traced  in  the  usage  of  such  words  asjnsiice  for  judge,  fo»;iw/  for  counsellor, 
in  both  which  cases  the  functionary*  takes  the  name  of  that  which  he  dis- 
penses or  administers. — But  supposing  this  to  be  the  true  construction  of 
the  phrase,  the  question  still  arises,  who  are  the  contracting  parties,  or  in 
other  words,  what  arc  we  to  understand  by  people'     The  great  majority  of 
writers  make  it  mean  the  Jens,  the  chosen  people  of  Jehovah,  and  the  cove- 
nant the  mediator  or  negotiator  of  a  new  covenant  between  them  and  Jeho- 
vah, according  to  the  representation  in  Jer.  xxxi.  31-83,     To  this  it  may 
be  objected  that  CJJ  has  not  the  article  as  usual  when  employed  in  that 
sense,  and  that  even  with  the  article  it  is  applied  in  the  preceding  verse  to 
mankind  in  general.     To  this  it  may  be  addetl  that  the  word  nalio)is  in  the 
next  clause  may  as  well  be  exegetical  oi  pcoplv  as  in  contrast  with  it.     The 
first  supposition  is  indeed  much  more  natural,  because  the  words  are  in  such 
dose  connection,  and  because  there  is  no  antithesis  between  the  correlative 
expressions,  Ivjht  and  covenant.     To  this  it  is  replied,  that  the  reference  to 
Israel  in  this  case  is  determined  by  the  clear  unambiguous  analogy  of  chap, 
xlix.  8,  where  the  phrase  recurs  and  in  a  similar  connection.     This  conclu- 
sion not  only  rests  upon  a  false  assumption  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  context 
there,  but  is  directly  contradicted  by  the  language  of  ver.  6,  where  it  is  ex- 
pressly said  that  it  wns  not  enough  for  Christ  to  be  the  restorer  of  Israel,  ho 
must  also  be  a  lii/h(  to  the  (j'en'iles;  and  in  direct  continuation  of  this  pro- 
mise it  is  added  in  ver.  8,  without  the  .show  of  a  distinction  or  antithesis, 
that  he  should  bo  a  covenant  of  the  people,  (j.  e.  of  the  nations),  to  restore  or 
re-estalili.sh   the  earth  (not  the  land,  which  is  a  perfectly  gratuitous  restric- 
tion), to  catoie  to  he  inherited  the  ilrsolate  heritnijes,  (i.  e.  the  ruins  of  an  apos- 
tate world),  and  to  saij  to  the  })risoners,  (io  forth,  the  arbitrary'  reference  of 
which  words  to  the  Babylonish  exile  is  in  fact  the  only  ground  for  the  opi- 
nion now  disputed.      So  far  is  this  passage,  then,  from  disproving  the  wide 
explanation  of  the  word  DJ^  in  the  place  before  us,  that  it  really  affords  a 
very  strong  analogical  reason  in  its  favour,  and  we  need  no  longer  hesitate 
to  understand  the  clause  as  a  description  of  the  servant  of  Jehovah  in  the 
character,  not  only  of  a  light  (or  an  enlightener)  to  the  nations,  but  of  a 
mediator  or  negotiator  between  God  and  the  people,  i.e.  men  in  general. 
These  are  epithets  applying  in  their  highest  sense  to  Ciirist  alone^  to  whom 
they  are  in  fact  ni»plied  by  Simeon  (Luke  ii.  82).  and  Paul  (Acts  xiii.  47). 
That  neither  of  tliese  quotes  the  phrase  a  covenant  of  the  people,  docs  not 


Ver.  7.]  ISAIAH  XLIJ.  137 

prove  that  it  has  no  relation  to  the  Gentiles,  but  only  that  it  docs  not 
relate  to  them  exclusively,  but  to  the  whole  human  race ;  whereas  the  other 
phrase,  as  applying  specifically  to  the  Gentiles,  and  as  being  less  ambiguous, 
was  exactly  suited  to  Paul's  purpose. — At  the  same  time  let  it  be  observed 
that  this  description  is  entirely  appropriate,  not  only  to  the  Head  but  to  the 
liody  also  in  subordination  to  him.  Not  only  the  Messiah  but  the  Israel 
of  God  was  sent  to  be  a  mediator  or  connecting  link  between  Jehovah  and 
the  nations.  The  meaning  put  upon  DJ/  '^^"'?  ^'J  Ilitzig  and  Ewald,  although 
not  philologically  accurate,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Old  Testament  respecting  the  mission  and  vocation  of  Israel,  the  ancient 
Church,  as  a  covenant-race  or  middle-people  between  God  and  the  apostate 
nations. 

7.  To  open  bUnd  ei/es,  to  bring  out  from  prixoit  the  hondmnn,  from  the 
house  of  eoufiuement  the  durllers  in  dorhiess.  This  was  the  end  to  be  ac- 
complished by  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  the  character  or  office  just  ascribed 
to  him.  The  spiritual  evils  to  be  remedied  are  represented  under  the  figures 
of  imprisonment  and  darkness,  the  removal  of  the  latter  having  obvious 
allusion  to  the  li^/ht  of  the  nutiona  in  ver,  6,  The  fashionable  explanation 
of  these  words,  which  refers  them  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile, 
is  encumbered  with  various  and  complex  difficulties.  What  is  said  of  bon- 
dage must  be  either  strictly  understood  or  metaphorically.  If  the  former 
be  preferred,  how  is  it  that  the  Prophet  did  not  use  expressions  more 
exactly  descriptive  of  the  state  of  Israel  in  Babylon  ?  A  whole  nation  car- 
ried captive  by  its  enemies  could  hardly  be  described  as  prisoners  in  dark 
dungeons,  Knobel,  with  readiness  almost  rabbinical,  supplies  the  neces- 
sary fact  by  saying  that  a  part  of  the  Jews  were  imprisoned.  But  even 
granting  that  they  were  in  prison,  were  they  also  blind  ?  If  it  be  said  that 
this  is  a  figurative  representation  of  confinement  in  the  dark,  the  principle 
of  strict  interpretation  is  abandoned,  and  the  imprisonment  itself  may  be  a 
metaphor  for  other  evils.  There  is  then  left  no  specific  reason  for  apply- 
ing this  description  to  the  exile  any  more  than  to  a  hundred  other  seasons 
of  calamity.  Another  and  more  positive  objection  to  this  limitation  is  that 
it  connects  this  verse  with  only  part  of  the  previous  description,  and  that 
the  part  to  which  it  bears  the  least  resemblance.  Even  supposing  what  has 
been  disproved,  that  vovrnant  of  the  people  has  respect  to  Israel  alone,  how 
is  it  that  the  other  attribute,  a  light  to  the  GentUea,  must  be  excluded  in 
interpreting  what  follows  ?  It  was  surely  not  in  this  capacity  that  the  Ser- 
vant of  Jehovah  was  to  set  the  Jewish  exiles  free.  If  it  be  said  that  this 
verse  has  respect  to  only  one  of  these  two  characters,  this  supposition  is 
not  only  arbitrary,  but  doubly  objectionable  ;  first,  because  it  passes  over 
the  nearest  antecedent  (D^l^  11^*)  to  connect  the  verse  exclusively  with  one 
more  distant  (QV  ^^T^?),  and  then,  because  it  passes  by  the  very  one  to 
which  the  figures  of  this  verse  have  most  analogy.  The  opening  of  the 
eyes  and  the  deliverance  of  those  that  sit  in  darlmess  are  correlative  expres- 
sions to  the  light  of  the  Gentiles,  which  on  this  account,  and  as  the  nearest 
antecedent,  must  decide  the  sense  of  this  verse,  if  that  sense  depend  on 
either  of  these  attributes  exclusively,  I  u-ill  make  thee  a  light  to  the  (hn- 
liles,  til  open  the  blind  eges,  &.C.,  cannot  mean,  I  will  make  thee  an  instruc- 
tor of  the  heathen  to  restore  the  Jews  from  captivity  in  Babylon,  Whether 
the  verse  before  us  therefore  be  strictly  or  figuratively  underslood,  it  cannot 
be  applied  to  the  captivity  without  doing  violence  at  once  to  the  text  and 
context.  The  very  same  reasoning  applies  to  the  analogous  expressions 
«sed  in  chap.  xlix.  9,  and  thus  corroborates  our  previous  conclusion,  that 


13.S  ISAIAH  XLIl.  [Ver.  8,  9. 

tbo  context  in  neither  of  these  places  favours,  much  less  requires,  the  re- 
strictiun  of  Oy  nn?  to  the  Jews.  The  only  natural  interpretation  of  the 
Verse  hefore  us  is  that  which  makes  it  figurative  hke  the  one  preceding  it, 
and  the  only  natural  interpretation  of  its  figures  is  the  one  which  undt-r- 
Btiinds  them  as  descriptive  of  spiritual  hlindncss  and  spiritual  bondage, 
both  which  are  nieUiphors  of  constant  application  to  the  natural  condition 
of  mankind  iu  the  Old  as  well  as  the  New  Testament,  The  removal  of 
these  evils  is  the  work  of  Christ,  as  the  revealer  of  the  Father  who  "  has 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light;"  but  in  subordination  to  him,  and 
as  his  representative,  his  church  may  also  be  correctly  represented  as  a 
covenant  of  the  people  and  a  light  of  the  nations  ;  since  the  law,  though 
a  divine  revelation,  was  to  go  forth  from  Zion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord 
from  Jerusalem. 

8.  I  am  Jehovah,  thai  is  7??y  vame,  ami  my  <jlori/  to  another  will  I  not 
give,  and  my  praise  to  graven  iviuyes.  The  name  Jehovah  is  here  used 
with  emphasis  in  reference  to  its  etymological  import  as  descriptive  of  a 
self-existent,  independent,  and  eternal  being.  There  is  no  sufficient  ground 
for  the  opinion  that  the  pronoun  ><-"in  is  ever  used  as  a  dinne  name,  cog- 
nate and  equivalent  to  Jehovith.  In  this  case,  the  obvious  and  usual  con- 
struction is  entirely  satisfactory.  Graven  images  are  liere  put,  as  iu  many 
othir  cases,  for  idols  in  general,  without  regard  to  the  mode  of  their  for- 
mation. The  connection  of  this  verse  with  what  precedes  may  seem  obscure, 
but  admits  of  an  easy  explanation.  From  the  assertion  of  Jehovah's  power 
and  perfection  as  a  groimd  for  his  people's  confidence,  the  Prophet  now 
proceeds,  by  a  natural  transition,  to  exhibit  it  in  contrast  with  the  impo- 
tence of  those  gods  in  whom  the  Gentiles  trusted.  These  ai*e  represented 
not  only  as  inferior  to  God,  but  as  his  enemies  and  rivals,  any  act  of  wor- 
ship paid  to  whom  was  so  much  taken  from  what  he  claimed  as  his  own, 
and  as  his  own  exclusively.  The  general  doctrine  of  the  verso  is  that  true 
and  false  religion  cannot  co-exist ;  because,  however  tolerant  idolatry  may 
bo,  it  is  essential  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  to  be  perfectly  exclusive  of 
all  other  gods.  This  is  included  in  the  very  name  Jehovah,  and  accounts 
for  its  solemn  proclamation  here. 

9.  The  first  {or  former)  thinijs — lo,  thnj  have  come,  and  neic  thimis  I  (am) 
telling ;  Itefore  they  spring  forth  {sprout  or  germinate)  I  will  mahc  {or  let)  you 
hear  {them).  This  is  an  appeal  to  former  prophecies  already  verified,  as 
grounds  of  confidence  in  those  yet  unfulfilled.  The  attempts  which  have 
been  made  to  give  specific  meanings  to  former  things  and  new  things,  as 
denoting  certain  classes  of  jiropbecies,  are  unsuccessful,  because  perfectly 
grjituitous.  The  most  plausible  hypothesis  of  this  kind  is  Vitringa's,  whicli 
applies  the  one  term  to  the  prophecies  respecting  Cyrus  and  the  Babylonish 
exile,  the  other  to  the  prophecies  respecting  the  Jlessiah  and  the  new  dis- 
pensation, lint  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words  appears  to  I  e,  that  as 
former  prophecies  'not  of  Isaiah  but  of  older  juophets)  liad  come  to  pass, 
so  those  now  uttered  should  be  likewise  verified.  The  strong  and  beauti- 
ful expression  in  the  last  clause  can  only  mean  that  the  events  about  to  bo 
predicted  were  beyond  thi-  reach  of  human  foresight,  and  is  therefore  dc- 
Btructivo  of  the  modem  notion,  that  these  prophecies  were  written  after 
Cyrus  had  appeared,  and  at  a  time  when  the  further  events  of  his  history 
could  be  foreseen  by  an  observer  of  unusual  sagacity.  Such  a  prognosti- 
cator,  unless  he  was  also  a  dclilierate  deceiver,  a  charge  which  no  one 
brings  against  this  writer,  couM  not  have  said  of  what  he  thus  foresaw, 
that  he  announced  it  before  it  had  1  cgun  to  germinate,  i.  r.  while  the  seed 


Ver.  10,  11. J  ISAIAH  XLU.  139 

was  in  the  earth,  and  before  any  outward  indications  of  the  plant  could  be 
perceived.  As  this  embi'accs  all  the  writer's  prophecies,  it  throws  the  date 
of  composition  back  to  a  period  before  the  rise  of  Cyrus,  and  thereby  helps 
to  invalidate  the  arguments  iu  favour  of  regarding  it  as  contemporaneous 
with  the  Babylonish  exile. 

10.  Sing  to  Jehovah  a  nciu  song,  his  praise  fiovi  the  end  of  the  earth, 
{ye)  going  down  to  the  sea  and  its  fulness,  isles  and  their  inhahiiants  I  To 
sing  a  new  song,  according  to  Old  Testament  usage,  is  to  praise  God  for 
some  new  manifestation  of  his  power  and  goodness.  It  implies,  therefore, 
not  only  fresh  praise,  but  a  fresh  occasion  for  it.  Reduced  to  ordinary 
prose  style,  it  is  a  prediction  that  changes  arc  to  take  place  joyfully  ati'ect- 
ing  the  condition  of  the  whole  world.  Tiiat  this  is  a  hyperbole,  relating 
to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  is  too  gratuitous  and  forced 
a  supposition  to  be  imposed  upon  any  reader  of  the  prophecy  against  his 
■will.  Let  those  who  can,  receive  and  make  the  most  of  it.  The  great 
majority  of  readers  will  be  apt  to  reject  an  assumption  which  has  no  foun- 
dation in  the  text,  and  which  reduces  a  sublime  prediction  to  an  extrava- 
ganza.— Geseuius,  for  some  reason  not  explaineJ,  chooses  to  read  at  instead 
oi  from  the  end.  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  phrase  is,  that  the  sound 
of  praise  should  be  heard  coming  from  tlie  remotest  quarters.  Its  fulness 
may  either  be  connected  with  the  sea,  and  both  dependent  on  go  down  (to 
the  sea  and  its  fulness),  or  regarded  as  a  distinct  object  of  address.  In 
the  latter  case,  the  marine  animals  would  seem  to  be  intended  ;  in  the 
former,  the  whole  mass  of  water  with  its  contents  ;  the  last  is  more 
poetical  and  natm-al.  The  antithesis  is  then  between  the  sea  with  its 
frequenters  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  isles  with  their  inhabitants  on  the 
other. 

11.  The  desert  and  its  toivns  shall,  raise  (the  voice),  the  enclosures  (or  en- 
campments, in  which)  Kedar  dwells  ;  the  dwellers  in  the  Rock  shall  shout, 
from  the  top  of  mountains  shall  they  cry  aloud.  This  is  a  direct  continua- 
tion of  the  previous  description,  iu  which  the  whole  world  is  represented  as 
exulting  in  the  promised  change.  The  reference  of  this  verse  to  the  course 
of  the  returning  exiles  through  the  intervening  desert  is  forbidden  by  the 
mention  of  the  sea  and  its  fulness,  the  isles,  and  the  ends  of  the  earth,  in 
the  preceding  and  following  verses.  If  these  are  not  all  parts  of  the  same 
great  picture,  it  is  impossible  to  frame  one.  K  they  are,  it  is  absurd  to  take 
the  first  and  last  parts  in  their  widest  sense  as  an  extravagant  hyperbole, 
and  that  which  is  between  them  in  its  strictest  sense  as  a  literal  descrip- 
tion. The  only  consistent  supposition  is,  that  sea,  islands,  deserts,  moun- 
tains, towns,  and  camps,  are  put  together  as  poi.tical  ingredients  of  the 
general  conception,  that  the  earth  in  all  its  parts  shall  have  occasion  to  re- 
joice.— The  mention  of  cities  as  existing  m  the  wilderness  appears  less 
strange  in  the  orij:;inal  than  in  a  modern  version,  because  both  the  leading 
words  ("^?7'^  ^'^'^  "''^)  ^^'^^''^  ^  greater  latitude  of  meaning  than  their  usual 
equivalenis  ;  the  first  denoting  properly  a  pasture-ground,  and  being  applic- 
able, therefore,  to  any  uncultivated  region,  whether  uninhabited  or  not,  the 
other  answering  to  toion  in  its  widest  English  sense,  inclusive  of  both  villages 
and  cities.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supposing  a  particular  allusion 
to  oases  in  the  arid  desert,  or  of  assuming,  as  Gcsenius  docs  in  his  Thesau- 
rus, that  "I'V  sometimes  means  nothing  more  than  a  military  station,  post, 
or  watch-tower  (See  chap.  i.  8.) — The  translation  of  Q^"iVD  by  villages  is  too 
restricted,  since  the  Hebrew  word  is  applicable  also  to  collections  of  tents  or 
nomadic  encampments,  which  appears  to  be  the  prominent  idea  here.    Kedar 


MO  ISALlir  XLII.  [Ver.  12,  13. 

was  the  second  son  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  13).  Here,  as  in  chfip.  xxi.  10,  the 
nnme  is  put  for  liis  descendants,  or  hv  a  natural  metonymy  f(»r  the  Arahiaus 
in  general.  The  rabbinical  name  for  the  Arabic  languaj^'e  is  (he  tomjue  of 
Kedar.  The  Septuagint  takes  it  as  the  name  of  the  country  {and  those  in- 
habiting Krdar).  The  Vulgate  makes  this  clause  a  promise  {Krdar  shall 
dtvell  in  houses),  and  the  preceding  verb  a  passive  {let  the  drsert  and  itt 
towns  he  exalted).  Cocceius  has  the  same  construction,  but  gives  both  the 
verbs  an  imperative  meaning,  and  follows  the  Septuagint  in  explaining 
Kedar  (efferat  sc  descrlum  et  oppida  ejus  ;  per  pagos  hahitefttr  Kedarena). 
Most  writers,  anciont  and  modern,  have  regarded  a  relative  construction  as 
more  natural  {which  Kedar  doth  inhabit.)  The  use  of  Kedar  as  a  feminine 
is  contrary  to  general  usage,  which  distinguishes  between  the  name  of  the 
country  as  feminine  and  that  of  the  nation  possessing  it  as  masculine.  The 
ral)bins  explain  it  by  supposing  an  ellipsis  of  riT'y  before  it.  More  probably, 
however,  it  is  an  irregularity  or  licence  of  construction,  such  as  we  have 
seen  already  in  chap.  xxi.  2,  and  elsewhere. — Vitringa,  J.  !>.  Michaelis,  and 
some  later  writers,  explain  V"?P  as  the  proper  name  of  Pctra  ;  but  the  whole 
connection  renders  it  more  natural  to  take  it  in  its  general  sense  of  rock,  and 
as  corresponding,  not  so  much  to  Kedar  as  to  the  appellatives,  desert,  towns, 
encampments,  mountains. 

12.  They  shall  place  {or  give)  to  Jehovah  honour,  and  his  praise  in  the 
islands  they  shall  shew  forth  (or  diclare).  Still  another  mode  of  saying, 
the  whole  world  shall  praise  him.  The  islands  are  again  mentioned,  either 
as  one  out  of  several  particulars  before  refenvd  to,  or  with  emphasis,  as  if 
he  had  said,  even  in  the  islands,  beyond  sea,  and  by  implication  in  the 
furthest  regions. — As  the  verb  to  give,  in  Hebrew  usage,  has  the  secondary 
sense  of  placing,  so  the  verb  to  place  is  occasionally  used  as  an  equivalent 
to  that  of  giving.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  425.)  The  translation  of  the  verbs 
in  this  verse  as  imperatives  {let  them  give  glorij  and  declare),  although 
substantially  correct,  is  a  needless  departnro  from  the  fonn  of  the  original, 
in  which  the  idea  of  command  or  exhortation  in  suHicicntly  implied,  though 
not  expressed.  The  verbs  do  not  agree  with  the  series  of  nouns  in  the 
foregoing  verse  (desert,  towns,  «S:c.),  for  these  could  not  celebrate  Jehovah 
in  (he  islands.  The  construction  is  indefinite,  they,  i.  e.  men  in  general,  a 
form  of  speech  of  far  more  frequent  occurrence  in  Hebrew  than  would  be 
suspected  by  a  reader  of  the  English  Hilile. 

13.  Jehovah,  like  a  strong  one,  will  go  forth  ;  like  a  warrior  (literally  o 
man  rf  battle)  he  ivill  rouse  {his)  zeal ;  he  xvill  shout,  iira,  he  will  cry ;  against 
hisfoe-i  will  vudcr  (or  shew)  himself  strong.  From  the  effect  he  now  reverts 
to  the  ethcient  cause.  The  universal  joy  bet\)re  descri!»ed  is  to  arise  fnmi 
Jehovah's  triumph  over  his  enemies.  The  martial  figures  of  the  verse  are 
intelligible  in  themselves,  and  all  familiar  to  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures. 
Lowth  and  I'an.es  amend  the  common  version  of  the  first  clause  by  read- 
ing, he  shall  march  forth  like  a  hero.  The  modem  Germans  also  use  the 
word  Held  (hero).  Luther  and  Calvin  prefer  giant.  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  any  English  word  is  more  apjtropriate  or  striking  than  the  strict 
translation  strong  or  mighty.  To  go  forth  is  the  common  Hebrew  phra.so 
for  going  oat  to  war  or  i)attle.  (See  above,  on  chap.  xl.  20.)  Junius  and 
Tremellius  understand  the  plural  battles  as  a  superlative  expros.sion,  and 
translate  the  phrase  vir  bclllcoifissiynuM  cvigilans  z>-lo.  The  versions  of 
Clericus  {vir  militaris),  and  Vitringa  {prrittu  bellator)  greatly  weaken  tho 
expression.  H^pp  niay  either  have  its  general  sense  of  ardour,  strong  and 
violent  aflection  of  whatever  kind,  or  its  more  specific  sense  of  jealousy,  or 


i 


Ver.  14.]  ISAIAH  XLIL  HI 

sensitive  regard  for  Lis  own  honour  and  for  the  welfare  of  his  people. 
(See  vol.  i.  p.  206.)  The  idea  is  that  of  an  ancient  wamor  exciting 
bis  own  courage  by  a  shout  or  war-cr}'.  The  last  clause  may  be  under- 
stood to  mean,  he  shall  prevail  over  his  enemies ;  but  although  this  idea 
is  undoubtedly  included,  it  is  best  to  retain  the  reflexive  form  and  import 
of  the  verb,  as  far  as  may  be,  in  translation. 

14.  /  liave  long  heen  still,  (saying)  I  ivill  hold  my  peace,  I  loill  restrain 
myself.  (But  now),  like  the  travailing  {icojuan)  I  will  shriek,  1  uill  pant 
and  gasp  at  once.  The  consecution  of  the  tenses  in  the  first  clause  has 
occasioned  the  most  opposite  constructions.  Of  these  the  most  violent  and 
ungrammatical  is  that  of  Augusti,  who  translates  all  the  verbs  of  the  verse 
as  preterites.  With  this  exception,  it  appears  to  be  agreed  on  all  hands 
that  the  verbs  of  the  last  clause  are  either  futures  proper,  or  descriptive 
presents,  and  the  only  question  is  in  reference  to  those  of  the  first.  Ac- 
cording to  Luther,  these  are  all  presents ;  while  the  Vulgate,  followed  by 
most  modern  writers,  makes  them  all  refer  to  past  time.  That  such  assimi- 
lations do  occur,  is  certain  ;  but  a  general  maxim  of  interj^retation  makes 
it  highly  desirable  to  regard  the  distinction  of  the  tenses,  where  we  can,  as 
intentional  and  significant.  Lowth  and  Ewald  accordingly  follow  the  Sep- 
tuagint  in  retaining  the  future  form  of  the  second  and  third  verbs,  but  read 
them  interrogatively  (I  have  long  been  silent ;  shall  I  hold  my  peace  and 
restrain  myself  for  ever  ?)  This  involves  the  necessity  of  reading  Q^IVTin 
{/or  ever?)  and  connecting  it  against  the  accents  with  what  follows.  It  is 
true  that  interrogative  sentences,  without  the  interrogative  particle  ex- 
pressed, are  not  unknown  to  Hebrew  usage ;  but  their  occurrence  is  com- 
paratively rare,  and  ought  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity,  which  of 
course  has  no  existence  if  the  clause  can  be  affirmatively  read  without 
abandoning  the  strict  sense  of  the  future.  This  can  be  done,  as  may  be 
Been  in  the  translation  above  given,  by  regarding  the  second  and  third  verbs 
as  the  expression  of  his  own  determination  or  intention  while  the  silence 
lasted.  The  omission  of  the  verb  to  say  before  such  repetitions  or  citations 
is  not  only  frequent  in  general  usage,  but  the  more  natural  in  this  case  from 
the  fact  that  this  whole  verse  is  universally  regarded  as  the  words  of  God 
himself,  although  he  is  not  expressly  introduced  as  the  speaker.  The 
necessity  of  supplying  (at  least  in  thought)  the  words  hut  now  before  the 
last  clause,  is  not  pecuHar  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  but  common  to  it 
with  all  others,  except  Augusti's  paradoxical  construction.  The  word  nj?3N 
is  twice  used  elsewhere  by  Isaiah  (xxx.  0,  lix.  5)  as  a  noun  meaning  a  viper 
or  some  other  venomous  serpent,  in  which  sense  it  is  also  used  by  Job  (xx. 
16).  The  general  principles  of  analogical  interpretation  would  require  this 
sense  to  be  retained  here  ;  but  the  only  writers  who  have  ventured  so  t^  do 
are  Junius  and  Tremellius,  who  translate  the  clause,  ut  parturieiitem  vijwram 
desolabo.  Even  the  Rabbins  give  the  word  the  sense  of  crying,  which  is 
plainly  a  conjecture  from  the  context.  Bochart  attempts  a  compromise 
between  the  two  opinions,  by  supposing  that  the  word  originally  means  to 
hi.ss  like  a  serpent;  and  Gesenius  connects  it  with  HXS  to  hlou:  The  only 
objection  to  the  common  version,  shriek  or  scream,  is  that  it  seems  too  strong 
both  for  the  etymology  and  the  analogy  of  the  verbs  which  follow,  and  which 
seem  to  denote  a  suppressed  sound  rather  than  a  loud  one,  /  uill  pant  and 
gasp  at  once.  There  is  indeed  another  very  ancient  explanation  of  these 
two  verbs,  given  in  the  Vulgate  and  by  Calvin,  Grotius,  Hitzig,  and  Hende- 
werk,  as  well  as  in  the  English  Version,  /  trill  dcstrog  and  dcrour  at  once. 
This  refers  Clt'''N*  to  the  rout  2Pr'  t<^  l<ty  ii-aste  (and  more  generally  to  destroy), 


142  ISAIAH  XLII.  (Yer.  15,  IG. 

and  gives  ^Xt*  the  sense  of  swallowing,  and  then  (like  V'yz.)  that  of  destroy- 
ing. But  ^^*^  means  elsewhere  to  pant  or  ffasp;  and  CtJ'^  may  be  readily 
regarded  as  a  synonymo,  if  derived  from  Dt?*^  to  hreathe,  of  which  it  wonld  be 
the  natural  future.  It  is  tnie  that  this  verb  does  not  occur  elsewhere,  but 
its  derivative  "TpV'?  breath  is  of  perpetual  occurrence  ;  and  the  very  same 
writers  who  reject  the  derivation  from  Dyj  on  th's  ground,  assume  that  of 
i^VSt*  from  nj;9,  not  only  in  the  absence  of  any  other  instance,  but  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  usage  which  determines  it  to  be  a  noun.  The  authority  of 
Gesenius  may  be  cited  upon  both  sides  of  this  question,  not  only  from  his 
earlier  and  later  works,  but  from  the  last  edition  of  his  Lexicon,  in  which 
the  two  explanations  of  this  clause  are  separately  given  as  correct,  the  one 
under  ^IXL*',  which  is  explained  as  meaning  to  breathe  hard,  to  pant,  to  blow, 
"  e.  g.  of  an  angry  person.  Isa.  xlii.  1-1, '"  the  other  under  CDL'',  where  the  two 
verbs  are  translated,  "  I  will  destroy  and  gulp  down  tr»gether."  The  para- 
phrase added  in  the  latter  case,  "  my  wrath,  long  restrained,  I  will  now 
let  break  forth,"  is  no  doubt  the  true  sense  of  the  verse  on  either  supposition. 

15.  /  uill  lay  waste  moin}tai)is  and  hills,  aynl  all  their  herbage  will  I  dry 
up;  and  I  tcill  turn  (literally  place)  streams  to  islands,  and  pools  (or  lakes) 
will  I  dry  up.  Having  described  the  effect  and  the  cause  of  the  great 
future  change,  he  now  describes  the  change  itself,  under  the  common  form 
of  a  complete  revolution  in  the  face  of  nature,  sometimes  with  special  re- 
ference to  the  heavens  (chap.  xiii.  10),  sometimes  (as  here  and  in  chap, 
XXXV.  G,  7)  to  the  earth.  It  is  strange  that,  with  these  analogies  in  view, 
and  after  such  descriptions  as  those  previously  given,  any  should  still  sup- 
pose that  by  mountains  and  hills  we  are  here  to  understand  States  and 
governments,  and  by  their  herbs  the  citizens  or  subjects.  There  is  more 
probabilily  in  the  opinion  that  the  verse  contains  an  allusion  to  the 
ancient  cultivation  of  the  hills  of  Palestine,  by  means  of  terraces,  many 
of  which  are  still  in  existence.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  182.)  Houbigant 
and  Lowth  read  DVV  {dry  deserts),  which  is  not  only  needless  but  contrary 
to  usage,  as  DW  nowhere  signities  deserts  themselves,  but  always  their  in- 
habitants. Gesenius  and  the  other  motlern  writers  suppose  2^5^  to  be  here 
used  in  the  sense  of  dry  land  as  opposed  to  water.  The  necessity  of  this 
explanation  may,  however,  be  avoided  by  adopting  the  ingenious  suggestion  of 
Clericus,  that  what  is  here  described  is  the  actual  appearance  of  islands  in 
the  channels  of  the  streams  on  the  subsiding  of  the  water. — The  drying  of 
the  bed  of  the  Euphrates  by  Cyrus  can  at  the  utmost  only  be  the  subject 
of  an  indirect  allusion.  A  literal  prophecy  of  that  event  would  be  entirely 
misplaced  in  a  series  of  bold  metaphorical  descriptions.  Rosenmiillergoes 
to  nn  extravagant  length  in  attempting  to  connect  this  verse  with  the  pre- 
ceding context  by  explaining  it  to  mean  that  the  excited  warrior  will  dry  up 
vegetation  with  his  burning  breath. 

16.  And  I  u-ill  make  the  blind  walk  in  a  way  they  kiiew  not,  in  paths 
they  knew  not  I  will  make  them  tread ;  I  will  set  (or  turn)  darkness  before 
tlum  to  light,  and  obliquities  to  straightness.  These  are  the  words  ;  I  hare 
made  them  {or  done  them)  and  have  not  left  them.  The  particle  before  the 
fir^t  verb  is  conversive,  i.e.  gives  a  future  meaning  to  the  preterite,  because 
preceded  by  the  future  proper.  (See  Nordheimer,  §  219.)  The  ellipsis  of 
the  relative,  which  twice  occurs  in  this  cl:»use,  is  precisely  the  same  both  in 
Hebrew  and  in  English. — D*?.*'i?I;'D  may  be  translated  crooked  or  nnoven 
places,  as  opposed  to  what  is  level,  or  to  superficial  rectitude.  (See  above, 
on  chap.  xl.  -1,  p.  95.)  The  combination  of  the.sc  two  antitheses  (light  and 
dork,  crooked  and  straight)  shews  clearly  that  they  are  both  metaphorical 


Ver.  17-19.]  ISAIAH  XLII.  143 

expressions  for  the  same  thing  that  is  represented  under  other  fignres  in 
the  verse  preceding,  viz.,  total  change;  in  what  respect  and  hy  what  means, 
the  metaphors  themselves  do  not  determine.  And  yet  some  wTiters  under- 
stand tlie  first  clause  as  specifically  meaning  that  the  exiles  in  Babylon 
should  be  delivered  at  a  time  and  in  a  manner  which  they  had  not  expected; 
while  another  class  apply  the  words  exclusively  to  spiritual  exercise  or  reli- 
gious experience.  To  both  these  objects  the  description  admits  of  an  easy 
application ;  but  neither  of  them  is  to  be  considered  its  specific  subject. 
It  is  impossible,  without  the  utmost  violence,  to  separate  this  one  link  from 
the  chain  of  which  it  forms  a  part,  that  is  to  say,  from  the  series  of  strong 
and  varied  metaphors,  by  which  the  Prophet  is  expressing  the  idea  of 
abrupt  and  total  change.  The  same  thing  that  is  meant  by  the  wasting  of 
cultivated  hills,  the  withering  of  herbage,  and  the  drying  up  of  streams  and 
lakes,  is  also  meant  b}'  the  leading  of  blind  men  in  a  now  path,  i.e.  causing 
them  to  witness  things  of  which  they  had  had  no  previous  experience. — Tho 
usual  construction  of  tlie  last  clause  supplies  a  relative  before  the  leading 
verb  and  takes  it  suffix  as  a  dative — "  these  are  the  words  or  things  which 
I  have  done  for  them  and  have  not  left  them."  Another  construction 
separates  the  members  as  distinct  propositions — "  these  are  the  words  (or 
the  things  which  I  have  promised  to  the  people) ;  I  have  made  them  and 
have  not  forsaken  them."  The  simplest  and  most  regular  construction  is 
that  given  by  Jerome  and  Cocceius,  which  refers  the  pronouns  not  to  a 
noun  understood,  but  to  the  expressed  antecedent :  These  are  th?  words 
(i.e.  my  promises),  I  have  performed  them  and  have  not  abandoned  them, 
that  is  to  say,  I  have  not  relinquished  my  design  until  it  was  accomplished. 
(Compare  the  last  clause  of  Ezekiel,  xvii.  24.)  The  translation  of  these 
verbs  as  futux'cs  has  arisen  merely  from  a  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  inter- 
preter that  the  words  ou(jht  to  contain  a  promise ;  whereas  the  promise  is 
implied,  or  rather  superseded  by  the  declaration  that  the  work  is  done 
already,  or  at  least  that  the  effect  is  already  secured.  The  usual  con- 
struction, which  makes  one  a  preterite  and  one  a  future,  is  doubly  arbitrary 
and  capricious. 

17.  They  are  turned  hach,  they  sliaJl  he  ashamed  ivilh  shame  Ci.  e. 
utterly  ashamed),  those  truslin'i  in  the  yraven  image,  those  saying  to  the  mol- 
ten image,  Ye  are  our  gods.  This  verse  describes  the  etlect  to  be  produced 
by  the  expected  changes  on  the  enemies  of  God  and  tlie  worshippers  of 
idols.  They  are  turned  hack,  utterly  defeated,  foiled  in  their  maliffnant 
opposition.  Nor  is  this  all ;  for  they  are  yet  to  be  utterl}'  ashamed,  con- 
founded, disappointed,  and  disgraced.  In  the  last  clause  it  is  plain  that 
the  graven  and  molten  image  are  separated  only  by  the  parallelism,  because 
the  address  at  the  end  is  in  the  plural  form,  not  thou  art,  but  ye  are  oUr 
gods.     On  the  usage  of  these  two  nouns,  see  vol.  i.  p.  482. 

18.  Ye  deaf,  hear  !  and,  ye  Wind,  look  to  see  !  From  the  connection,  this 
would  seem  to  be  a  call  upon  the  worshippers  of  idols,  to  open  their  eyes 
and  ears,  and  become  conscious  of  their  own  delusions. — The  infinitive  at 
the  end  of  the  sentence  does  not  express  the  manner  but  the  purpose  of 
the  act  required.  Vitrlnga's  version  therefore  (vidcndo  intuemini)  is  less 
correct  than  that  of  Jerome  (intuemini  ad  ridendum). 

19.  Who  (is.)  blind  but  vig  servant,  and  deaf  like  my  messenger  (irhom)  I 
will  send  ?  Who  (/s)  blind  like  the  derated  one  and  blind  like  the  servant  of 
Jehovah  /  Why  should  he  call  the  heathen  blind  and  deaf,  when  Israel 
himself,  with  all  his  honours  and  advantages,  refused  to  see  or  hear  ?  The 
very  people  whose  mission  and  vocation  it  was  to  make  the  Gentiles  see 


Ui  ISAIAH  XLll.  [Ver.  20. 

and  hear,  seemed  to  emulate  tbeir  insensibility.  The  most  difficult  ex- 
pression in  this  verse  is  oP\p^,  which  the  Seventy  seem  to  have  read  D vL'T? 
and  understood  ns  meaning  those  that  have  dominion  over  them.  Tho 
various  explanations  of  the  common  text  may  all  be  reduced  to  two  dis- 
tinct senses  of  the  verbal  root,  viz.,  that  of  beinj,'  at  peace  and  that  of  beiufj 
perfect  or  complete.  The  latter  meaning  is  assumed  by  Luther,  Calvin, 
Cocceius,  and  Yitringa ;  while  Clericus  modifies  it  so  as  to  mean  a  man  of 
consummate  uisthm,  and  Lowth  one  perfcdli/  instructed.  On  the  other 
hypothesis,  Junius  renders  it  doualus  pace;  Gesenius,  the  friend  of  (Jod ; 
Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  the  devoted  or  the  God-deioled.     This  last  is 

favoured   bv  the    analogv   of   ^\,..  ^    in   Arabic,  the  name  bv  which  the 

\ 
Mohammedans  describe  themselves,  and  which  denotes  one  who  gives  him- 
self to  God.  From  the  use  of  the  Piel  in  the  sense  of  completing,  making 
good,  repaying,  are  derived  the  Vulgate  version  (venundatu.s)  and  that  of 
Roseumiiller  [redemplun).  As  to  the  application  of  the  term  here,  Clericus 
supposes  that  it  means  the  High  Priest  or  some  eminent  person  of  the 
sacerdotal  order.  But  the  great  majority  of  writers  understand  it  as  de- 
scriptive of  Israel,  the  chosen  people.  The  objections  arising  from  the  use 
of  similar  expressions  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  with  respect  to  the 
Messiah  is  usually  set  a^^ide  by  arbitrarily  assuming  entire  diversity  of  sub- 
ject. Henderson  alone  has  the  intrepidity  to  understand  this  verse  of  the 
Messiah  likewise,  accounting  for  the  application  of  such  epithets  to  such  a 
subject  by  assuming  that  it  expresses  the  opinion  of  the  unbelieving  Jews 
respecting  Christ.  The  obvious  objection  to  this  mode  of  exposition  is, 
that  it  opens  the  door  to  endless  licence  of  interpretation,  by  admitting 
that  a  passage  may  be  referred  at  will  to  the  subject  which  it  is  least 
adapted  to  describe,  by  simply  making  it  express  the  mind  not  of  tho 
writer,  as  it  seems  to  do,  but  of  another  party  not  expressly  mentioned.  A 
purely  arbitrary  supposition  caimot  be  justified  by  the  assumption  of  another 
like  it.  The  true  solution  of  the  difficulty  seems  to  be  the  one  already 
given  in  explaining  the  first  verse,  viz.,  that  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  is  a 
title  applying  not  only  to  the  Head  but  to  the  Body  also.  Here,  wliere 
the  language  implies  censure  and  reproach,  the  terms  must  be  referred  ex- 
clusively to  Israel,  the  messenger  whom  God  had  sent  to  open  the  eyes  of 
the  other  nations,  but  who  had  himself  become  wilfully  blind.     The  future 

n7K*^  impUes  that  the  mission  was  not  yet  fulfilled.  Jerome's  construction, 
unto  whom  I  sent  my  messenriers,  is  wholly  ungrammatical,  and  a  mere 
expedient  to  avoid  a  seeming  ditficulty.     It  is  scarcely  credible  that  Clericus 

seems  half  inclined  to  take  '?^?P  as  the  proper  name  of  J/a/ar/ji". 

20.  Thau  hast  seen  many  thinys  and  wilt  not  observe.  (Sent)  to  open 
ears!  and  he  will  not  hear.  In  the  first  clause  he  turns  to  Israel  and 
addresses  him  directly;  in  the  last  he  turns  away  from  him  again,  and,  as 
it  were,  expresses  his  surprise  and  indignation  to  the  bystanders.  Tho 
sense  of  the  whole,  leaving  out  of  view  this  difference  of  form,  is  the  same 
as  in  the  foregoing  verse,  namely,  that  Israel  had  eyes  but  saw  not,  and 
instead  of  opening  the  cars  of  others  was  himself  incapable  of  hearing.  Tho 
sentence  may  bo  said  to  exhibit  a  climax.  In  the  first  clause  the  contrast 
is  between  tlie  blindness  of  the  people  and  the  light  which  they  enjoyed ;  in 
the  last  it  is  between  their  deafness  and  their  high  vocation  to  open  the  ears 
of  others.  Hence  the  abrupt  and  impassioned  form  of  expression  in  tho 
latter  case.     The  marginal  reading  ril^?,  though  susceptible  of  cxplanatioa 


Yi:r.  21-23.  j  ISAIAH  X  LI  I.  145 

as  an  infinitive,  is  an  unnecessary  emendation  of  the  textual  O^Xn.  The 
infinitive  np?  might  be  considered  as  deriving  a  jiretcrito  sense  from  the 
preceding  verb ;  but  a  better  explanation  is  atibrdcd  by  the  analog}'  of  rer. 
7,  where  the  same  infinitive  describes  the  end  for  which  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah  was  sent. 

21.  Jehovah  {is)  iciUinff  for  his  righteous7iess'  salce;  he  tc ill  magnify  the 
law  and  make  it  honourable.  The  people,  being  thus  unfaithful  to  their 
trust,  had  no  claim  to  be  treated  any  longer  as  an  object  of  Jehovah's 
favour ;  and  yet  he  continues  propitious,  not  on  their  account,  but  out  of 
regai'd  to  his  own  engagements,  and  for  the  execution  of  his  righteous  pur- 
poses. For  these  reasons  he  will  still  put  honour  on  the  chosen  people  and 
the  system  under  which  they  lived.  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  arbitrarily  construe 
V?"?  ^^'ith  ?^'!'^!,  is  pleased  to  marjuifn,  of  which  construction  there  is  no 
example  elsewhere,  and  then  make  this  an  idiom  of  the  later  Hebrew.  Still 
less  grammatical  is  the  constriiction  of  the  ancient  versions,  "  it  pleased 
God  to  justify  or  sanctify  him,"  whether  this  be  imderstood  to  imply  the 
reading  Ip'^V,  or  taken  as  a  paraphrase  of  the  common  text.  The  applica- 
tion of  the  words  to  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  inconsistent  with  the 
terms  of  censure  and  disapprobation  which  precede  and  follow. 

22.  And  {get)  it  {is)  a  people  spoiled  and  robbed,  ensnared  in  holes  all  of 
them,  and  in  houses  of  co7ifinement  theg  are  hidden.  They  have  become  a  spoil; 
and  there  is  none  delivering ;  a  preg,  and  there  is  none  saging,  Restore.  Here 
another  contrast  is  brought  into  view.  As  the  conduct  of  the  people 
did  not  answer  to  their  high  vocation,  so  their  treatment  does  not  answer 
to  the  preceding  declaration  of  God's  purpose.  If  he  still  designed  to 
honour  them,  though  not  for  their  own  sake,  how  was  this  to  be  reconciled 
with  what  they  suffered  at  the  hands  of  their  enemies  ?  The  terms  are  no 
doubt  metaphorical,  and  therefore  not  exclusively  descriptive  of  literal  cap- 
tivity. At  the  same  time  it  may  be  admitted  that  the  sufferings  of  Israel 
in  exile  furnished  one  of  the  most  memorable  instances  of  what  is  here  de- 
scribed in  general. — D''>'in3  is  explained  in  the  ancient  versions,  and  by 
many  modern  writers,  to  mean  youths  or  chosen  men,  as  it  does  above  in 
chap.  xl.  30.  But  why  should  this  class  be  described  as  in  captivity  ? 
Cocceius  and  Vitringa  change  the  meaning  of  the  clause  by  making  HDH  the 
infinitive  of  HIS,  to  Idow  or  pujf,  and  explaining  the  whole  phrase,  "  they  are 
all  the  puffing  of  the  3'oung  men,"  /.  e.  objects  of  derision  and  contempt. 
But  this  construction  violates  the  parallelism  for  the  sake  of  an  extremely 
forced  and  far-fetched  meaning.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  follow  Luther 
in  explaining  C^-ina  to  mean  in  holes  or  pitfalls,  corresponding  to  *B3 
D^X<?  in  the  other  member. 

23.  Who  among  you  icill  give  ear  to  this,  icill  hearken  and  hear  for  the 
time  to  come  /  By  this  we  are  not  to  understand  merely  the  fact  recorded 
in  the  foregoing  verse,  but  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  preceding  context  as 
to  the  vocation  and  mission  of  Israel,  and  as  to  his  actual  condition.  God 
had  appointed  him  to  be  a  source,  or  at  least  a  medium,  of  light  and  bless- 
ing to  the  nations  ;  but  instead  of  acting  up  to  this  high  character,  he  not 
only  left  the  nations  without  light,  but  was  wilfully  blinded  and  insensible 
himself.  Yet  God  would  still  be  true  to  his  engagements,  and  put  honour 
on  the  special  revelation  which  he  had  already  given.  Why,  then,  it  might 
be  asked,  was  Israel  suffered  to  fall  before  his  enemies  ?  The  answer  to 
this  question  is  introduced  by  an  indirect  caution  to  consider  it  and  bear  it 
in  mind.     The  interrogative  form  implies  the  possibility  of  their  neglecting 

VOL.  II.  K 


146  ISATAIl  XLIII.  [Veu.  21,  25. 

or  refusing  to  obey  it. — The  Inst  phrase  is  explained  to  mean  behind  or 
backwards  by  Vitringn  (a  lerrfo)  and  Ewald  {::ii)ULliirait.s),  who  seem  to 
understand  it  as  denoting  reflection  on  the  past,  or  the  act  of  meditating 
upon  what  they  heard. — Most  other  writers  understand  it  as  relating  either 
to  the  time  of  hearing  {lieiiceforth  or  hereafter)  oA  the  subject  of  the  declara- 
tions to  be  heard  {voncerninff  the  future).  ' 

24.  Iflio  has  given  Jacob  for  a  preij,  and  Israel  to  spoilers?  Has  not 
Jehovah,  against  tchum  we  have  sinned,  and  they  were  not  willing  in  his 
wags  to  walk,  and  did  nut  hearken  to  his  /air  /  This  was  what  they  were 
to  bear  in  mind,  viz.,  that  what  they  suflercd  was  ordained  of  God  and  on 
account  of  their  iniquities.  The  en'ors  of  which  this  verse  is  the  negation 
are  those  of  supposing  that  they  suffered  without  fault,  and  that  they  suf- 
fered, as  it  were,  in  spite  of  God's  protection,  or  because  he  was  unable  to 
prevent  it.  The  interrogation  makes  the  statement  more  emphatic  :  Who 
else  can  be  imagined  to  have  done  it,  or  for  what  other  cause  except  our 
sins  ?  The  change  of  person  in  the  last  clause  is  a  common  Helrew 
idiom,  and  does  not  seem  to  be  significant.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  94.)  If 
the  Prophet  identifies  himself  with  the  pooi)le  in  the  first  phrase,  he 
cannot  be  supposed  to  exclude  himself  in  that  which  follows. — Hitzig's 
translation  of  the  last  word  {his  instruclion)  is  too  weak,  as  it  fails  to  sug- 
gest the  idea  of  obligation.  It  is  also  at  variance  with  usiige,  which  requires 
Tn\T\  to  be  taken  not  in  its  etymological  sense  merely,  but  in  that  oi  law. — 
This  verse  is  strictly  applicable  to  the  sufferings  of  the  Jews  in  Babylon, 
and  it  was  no  doubt  so  applied  by  them  ;  but  in  itself  it  is  a  general  decla- 
ration of  a  fact  which  has  been  often  verified  and  was  especially  exemplified 
in  ancient  Israel,  viz.,  that  the  suflerings  even  of  God's  peojjle  are  the 
consequence  of  sin. 

25.  And  he  [Jehovah)  poured  upon  him  (Israel)  fury  (even)  his  wrath  and 
the  strength  (or  violence)  of  war:  and  it  set  him  on  fire  round  about,  and  he 
knew  (it)  not ;  and  it  burned  him,  and  he  will  not  lay  it  to  heart.  This  continues 
and  concludes  the  description  of  God's  judgments  and  of  Israel's  iustnsi- 
bility.  Most  writers  explain  HCn  as  an  absolute  form  used  for  the  construct 
{f'iry  of  his  anger).  Junius  and  Yitringa  make  it  an  adverbial  expression 
qualifying  1S^^  {excandescentid  or  cum  crcandesccntid  iram).  The  simplest 
construction  is  to  put  the  nouns  in  apposition,  either  as  mere  equivalents 
{iny  anger  as  fury),  or  as  exegetical  the  oue  of  the  other  (fury,  to  wit,  my 
anger). — Jh  knew  not  docs  not  here  mean  unawares,  without  his  knowledge*, 
but,  as  the  parallel  clause  shews,  implies  extnme  insensibility.  The 
translation  of  the  last  verb  as  a  preterite  is  ungrammatical,  and  the  assimi- 
lation of  the  two  as  presents,  an  evasion.  That  a  preterite  precedes, 
instead  of  shewing  that  the  future  must  refer  to  past  time,  shews  the  con- 
trary, by  leaving  us  unable  to  account  for  the  difference  of  form  if  none  of 
meaning  was  intended.  However  nece.esan'  such  assimilatinns  may  be 
elsewhere,  they  are  inadmissible  in  cases  like  the  present,  where  the  change 
of  tense  admits  of  an  easy  explanation,  to  wit,  that  the  writer  intended  to 
describe  the  people'not  only  as  having  been  insensible  before  but  as  likely 
to  continue  so  in  time  to  come. — On  the  usage  of  the  j'linisc  I'l  put  >r  Ln, 
xtpon  the  heart,  see  above,  p.  125. 

CHAPTER  XLIII. 

The  main  subject  of  this  chapter  is  the  true  relation  of  Israel  to  Jiho- 
Tah,  and  its  application  in  the  way  both  of  warning  and  cncouragcmenL 


Ver.  l.J  ISALm  XLIII.  U7 

The  doctrine  taught  is  that  their  segregation  from  the  rest  of  men,  as  a 
peculiar  people,  was  an  act  of  sovereignty,  independent  of  all  merit  in 
themselves,  and  not  even  intended  for  their  benefit  exclusively,  hut  for  the 
accomplishment  of  God's  gi-acious  purposes  respecting  men  in  general. 
The  inferences  drawn  from  this  fact  are,  that  Israel  would  certainly  escape 
the  dangers  which  environed  him,  however  imminent,  and  on  the  other  hand 
that  he  must  suffer  for  his  unfaithfulness  to  God.  In  illustration  of  these 
truths,  the  Prophet  introduces  several  historical  allusions  and  specific  pro- 
phecies, the  most  striking  of  the  former  having  respect  to  the  exodus  from 
Egypt,  and  of  the  latter  to  the  fall  of  Bahj-lon.  It  is  important  to  the  just 
interpretation  of  the  chapter  that  these  parts  of  it  should  be  seen  in  their 
true  light  and  proportion,  as  incidental  illustrations,  not  as  the  main  subject 
of  the  prophecy,  which,  as  already  stated,  is  the  general  relation  between 
God  and  his  ancient  people,  and  his  mode  of  dealing  with  them,  not  at  one 
time  but  at  all  times. 

Israel  is  the  peculiar  people  of  Jehovah,  cherished  and  favoured  at  the 
expense  of  other  nations,  vers.  1-4.  But  these  are  one  day  to  become 
partakers  of  the  same  advantages,  vers.  5-9.  The  proofs  of  the  divine 
protection  are  afforded  by  the  history  of  Israel,  vers.  10-13.  One  of  the 
most  remarkable,  yet  future,  is  the  downfall  of  Babylon  and  the  liberation 
of  the  exiles,  vers.  14,  15.  An  analogous  example  in  more  ancient  times 
•was  the  deliverance  from  Egj'pt,  vers.  16,  17.  But  both  these  instances 
shall  be  forgotten  in  comparison  with  the  great  change  which  awaits  the 
church  hereafter,  vers.  18-21.  Of  all  these  distinguishing  ftivours  none 
was  owing  to  the  merit  of  the  people,  but  all  to  the  sovereign  grace  of  God, 
vers.  22-25.  The  people  were  not  only  destitute  of  merit,  but  deserving 
of  punishment,  which  they  had  experienced  and  must  experience  again, 
vers.  26-28. 

1.  And  noio,  thus  saith  Jehovah,  thy  Creator,  0  Jacob,  and  thy  Former, 
0  Israel,  Fear  not,  for  I  have  redeemed  thee,  I  have  called  thee  hi/  thy  name, 
thou  art  mine  (literallj-  to  me  art  thou).  The  juxtaposition  of  this  promise 
with  the  very  different  language  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter  has 
led  to  various  false  assumptions  as  to  the  connection  of  the  passages. 
Some  give  and  now  the  sense  of  i/et  or  nevertheless,  while  others  understand 
it  as  referring  to  a  period  following  that  just  mentioned  ;  as  if  he  had  said, 
After  these  things  have  been  suffered,  fear  no  longer.  But  this  interpreta- 
tion is  forbidden  by  the  reasons  here  suggested  for  not  fearing,  viz.,  that 
Jehovah  was  already  their  Creator  and  Redeemer,  and  had  already  called 
theui  and  made  thtm  his  peculiar  people.  It  will  also  be  observed  that 
in  chap.  xlii.  as  well  as  here,  there  is  the  same  alternation  and  apparent 
confusion  of  the  encouraging  and  minatory  tone,  which  cannot  therefore  be 
explained  by  referring  any  one  part  of  the  context  to  a  particular  period  of 
histoiy.  Another  solution  of  the  difhculty  is  that  the  Prophet  has  in  view 
a  twofold  Israel,  tbe  false  and  true,  the  carnal  and  spiritual.  This  is  con-ect 
Fo  far  as  what  he  says  relates  to  internal  chai'acter ;  but  it  is  evident  that 
he  has  reference  likewise  to  the  outward  fortunes  of  God's  people  as  an 
organised  body.  The  simplest  and  most  satisfactory  hypothesis  is  that,  in 
this  whole  context,  he  is  accounting  for  the  sufi'erings  of  Israel  and  his 
preservation  from  destruction  on  the  same  ground,  namely,  that  Jehovah 
had  chosen  them  and  therefore  would  preserve  them,  but  that  they  were 
unfaithful  and  must  therefore  suffer.  The  intermingling  of  the  promises  and 
threatenings  is  not  to  be  explained  by  supposing  a  reference  to  different 
periods  or  difierent  subjects  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  set  down  as  capricious  and 


148  ISAIAH  XLIII.  [Ver.  2,  3. 

unmeaning,  but  as  nocepsary  to  the  Prophet's  purpose.  The  now  will  then 
have  H  logical  rather  than  a  temporal  meaning,  as  introiluctury  to  an  expla- 
nation of  the  strange  fact  that  the  bush  was  burned  but  not  consumed. — 
Create  and /orw»  have  reference  not  merely  to  the  natural  creation,  nor  to 
the  spiritual  renovation  of  individuals,  but  to  the  creation  or  constitution  of 
the  church.  God  was  the  maker  of  Israel  in  a  peculiar  sense.  He  existed 
as  a  nation  for  a  special  purpose. — Fear  not,  t.  c.  fear  not  that  thou  canst 
be  utterly  destroyed.  It  is  not  an  assurance  of  immunity  from  sutlering, 
the  experience  of  which  is  implied  and  indeed  expressly  tlireatcned  in  what 
follows. — /  have  redcemid  thee.  There  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  redemption 
of  the  first-bom  under  the  Mosaic  law,  as  appears  from  the  metaphor  of 
substitution  used  in  vers.  3  and  4.  Thus  understood,  the  meaning  of  this 
clause  is,  thou  art  not  like  the  other  nations  of  the  earth,  for  I  have  pur- 
cluised  or  redeemed  thee  to  myself  as  a  peculiar  people. — To  call  ly  name 
includes  the  ideas  of  specific  designation,  public  announcement,  and  solemn 
consecration  to  a  certain  work.  This  and  the  other  clauses  of  the  verse 
can  be  applied  to  the  election  and  vocation  of  individuals  only  by  accommo- 
dation, and  only  so  far  as  the  case  of  the  individual  members  is  included  in 
that  of  the  whole  body.  It  is  a  curious  idea  of  Menochius,  that  nriX"*?  is 
the  name  assigned,  as  if  he  had  said,  /  have  called  thee  hy  thy  name  Liatlah 
{Thou-art-mine).  The  true  sense  is,  thou  art  mine  because  I  have  ex- 
pressly called  thee  so  to  1  e. — Rosenmiiller  discovers  here  another  obstetrical 
allusion  in  the  phrase  T)V.     (See  vol.  i.  p.  429.) 

2.  M'lien  thou  passrat  thruwjh  the  icaters,  I  it  ill  he  tilth  thee  ;  and  thrntiffh 
the  liters,  they  shall  not  oirtjlotc  thee:  tthcn  thou  tralkest  throm/h  the  fire, 
thou  shalt  not  be  scorched,  and  the  jlame  shall  not  litirn  thee.  Fire  and  water 
are  common  figures  for  calamity  and  danger.  (See  Ps.  Ixvi.  12.)  To  ex- 
plain one  as  meaning  civil  and  the  other  religious  persecutions,  as  Yitringa 
does,  is  wholly  arbitrary-,  and  might  be  reversed  with  just  as  much  or 
rather  just  as  Uttle  reason. — Although  u;Aen  conveys  the  true  sense  here, 
and  is  given  in  the  Lexicons  as  a  distinct  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  *?,  the 
latter  really  retains  its  proper  meaning, /or,  lecatise.  It  is  the  genius  of 
the  language  to  delight  in  short  independent  clauses,  where  we  use  more 
involved  and  complicated  periods.  "  P^or  thou  shalt  pass  through  the  waters, 
I  will  be  with  thee,  "  is  the  idiomatic  Hebrew  mode  of  saying.  If  or  when 
thou  passest,  &c. — The  last  clause  might  be  rendered,  when  thou  tialhest 
in  the  fire,  the  preposition  through  being  used  even  in  the  first  clause  only 
because  the  English  idiom  requires  it  after  pass. — Hitzig  gives  i^)^^  a  re- 
flexive meaning  [bum  thyself),  which  is  unnecessary,  although  it  agrees  well 
both  with  Hebrew  usage  and  the  English  idiom.  Augusti  takes  the  same 
verb  in  the  more  specific  sense  of  being  branded,  i.  e.  marked  by  the  fire. 
(Compare  the  derivative  noun  '?,  chap.  iii.  24.)  But  this  docs  not  suit  the 
more  indefinite  expressions  in  the  parallel  clauses. — The  common  version 
of  the  last  words,  shall  not  kindle  upon  thee,  is  of  doubtful  authority,  and 
seems  to  introduce  a  needless  anticlimax,  as  burning  is  much  more  than 
kindling. — The  application  of  this  promise  to  individual  believers  is  an  ac- 
commodation, but  one  justified  by  the  natural  relation  between  the  body 
and  its  several  members. 

8.  /or  /,  Jehovah,  thy  (lod,  the  Uoly  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour,  have 
given  {a.i)  thy  raiis(.m  Egypt,  Ethioj^ia,  and  Seba,  instead  of  thee.  This  is 
an  amplification  of  the  phrase  /  have  retlecmrd  thee  in  ver.  1.  As  tho 
Israelite  under  the  Mosaic  law  was  obliged  to  redeem  his  first-bom  by  tho 
payment  of  a  price,  or  by  the  substitution  of  some  other  object,  so  Jehovah 


Ver.  4.]  ISAIAU  XLIII.  140 

secured  Israel  as  his  own  by  giving  up  the  other  nations,  here  represented 
by  a  single  group,  just  as  the  forest  trees  are  represented  in  chap.  xli.  19 
by  a  few  well-known  species.  The  group  here  selected  is  composed  of 
three  contiguous  and  cognate  nations.  Cash,  which  was  placed  by  the 
older  writers  either  wholly  or  partly  in  Arabia,  is  admitted  by  the  moderns 
to  be  coincident  with  the  Ethiopia  of  the  Greek  geographers.  Seha  is  now 
commonly  supposed,  on  the  authority  of  Josephus,  to  be  Meroe,  a  part  of 
Ethiopia' surrounded  by  the  branches  of  the  Nile,  and  celebrated  by  the 
ancient  writers  for  its  wealth  and  commerce.  The  connection  of  the  coun- 
tries was  not  only  geographical  but  genealogical.  According  to  Gen.  x.  6,  7, 
Cush  was  the  brother  of  Mizraim  and  the  father  of  Seba.  According  to 
this  exegetical  hypothesis,  the  same  essential  meaning  might  have  been  con- 
veyed by  the  mention  of  any  other  gi-oup  of  nations.  At  the  same  time  it 
may  be  admitted,  that  the  mention  of  Eg}'pt  was  probably  suggested  by  its 
intimate  connection  with  the  history  of  Israel,  and  by  its  actual  sacrifice, 
in  some  sort,  to  the  safety  of  the  latter  at  the  period  of  the  exodus.  Many 
interjjreters  go  further,  and  suppose  that  the  words  would  have  been  appli- 
cable to  no  other  nations  than  those  specifically  mentioned,  and  that  the 
Prophet  here  alludes  to  the  real  or  anticipated  conquest  of  these  countries 
by  Cyrus,  as  a  sort  of  compensation  for  the  loss  of  Israel.  But  the  neces- 
sity of  this  prosaic  explanation  is  precluded  by  the  prophetic  usage  of 
specifying  individuals  as  representatives  of  classes,  while  the  sense  thus  put 
upon  ransom  or  atonement  is  extremely  forced  and  far-fetched.  That  the 
terms,  although  specific,  were  designed  to  have  a  wider  application,  may  be 
safely  inferred  from  the  generic  expressions  substituted  for  them  in  the  next 
verse. — The  essential  idea  of  ")?13,  here  and  elsewhere,  is  that  of  vicari- 
ous compensation. — The  insertion  of  the  substantive  verb  in  the  first  clause, 
so  as  to  make  it  a  distinct  projjosition  (7  am  Jehovah),  greatly  weakens  the 
whole  sentence.  The  description  of  the  speaker  in  the  first  clause  is  in- 
tended to  conciliate  regard  to  what  he  says  in  the  other.  It  was  in  the 
character,  not  only  of  an  absolute  and  sovereign  God,  but  in  that  of  Israel's 
God,  his  Holy  One,  his  Saviour,  that  Jehovah  had  thus  chosen  him  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  nations. 

4.  Since  thou  least  precious  in  my  eyes,  thou  hast  been  honoured,  and  I 
hare  loved  thee,  and  will  give  man  instead  of  thee,  and  nations  instead  of  thy 
soul  (or)  life.  There  is  precisely  the  same  ambiguity  in  since  as  in  the 
Hebrew  "I'^'fr^p.  Both  expressions  may  be  taken  either  in  a  temporal  or 
causal  sense.  Because  thou  wast  precious,  or,  from  the  time  that  thou  wast 
jn-ecious.  The  former  sense  is  really  included  in  the  latter.  If  Israel  had 
been  honoured  ever  since  Jehovah  called  him,  it  is  plainly  implied  that  this 
vocation  was  the  cause  of  his  distinction. — The  first  cause,  as  the  whole 
context  clearly  shews,  docs  not  refer  to  intrinsic  qualities,  but  to  an  arbitrary 
sovereign  choice.  Since  I  began  to  treat  thee  as  a  thing  of  value,  thou  hast 
been  distinguished  among  the  nations.  The  verse,  so  far  from  ascribing  any 
merit  to  the  people,  refers  all  to  Gol.  Some  continue  the  construction 
through  the  whole  verse,  making  the  apodosis  begin  with  the  second  clause, 
since  thou  art  precious  in  my  siijht,  and  art  honoured,  atid  I  love  thee,  I  will 
give,  &c.  This  yields  a  good  sense,  but  is  grammatically  inadmissible, 
because  it  supplies  a  conjunction  in  the  first  clause,  and  omits  one  in  the 
second.  Either  of  these  assumptions  might  be  justified  by  usage  and 
analogy  ;  but  the  coincidence  appears  unnatural,  and  makes  the  whole  con- 
struction harsh.  At  the  same  time,  this  construction  weakens  the  sentence 
by  making  it  a  mere  repetition  of  what  goes  before,  whereas  it  is  a  repeti- 


150  ISAIAH  XLIII.  [Ver.  5-8. 

tion  with  a  pointed  affirmation  that  the  nation  owed  its  eminence  entirely 
to  God. — The  future  (/  will  give)  shews  that  the  substitution  mentioned 
in  ver.  3  did  not  relate  merely  to  the  past,  but  to  the  future  also. — Man  is 
here  used  collectively  or  indefinitely  for  other  men  or  the  rest  of  men,  as 
in  Judg.  xvi,  7  ;  Ps.  Ixxiii.  5  ;  Job.  xxxi.  33  ;  Jer.  xxxii,  20.  Thy  soul, 
life,  or  person,  seems  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  usage  of  the  same  Hebrew 
word  in  the  Law,  with  respect  to  enumeration  or  redemption.  (See  Exod. 
xii.  4  ;  Lev.  xxvii.  4.)  The  general  terms  of  this  clause  make  it  wholly 
improl»able  that  ver.  3  has  specific  and  exclusive  reference  to  the  nations 
named  there. 

5.  Fear  not,  for  I  {am)  tcith  thee  ;  from  the  east  will  I  make  (or  let)  thy 
seed  come,  and  from  tJie  went  will  I  gather  th^e.  The  retV-n.>ncy  of  this 
verse  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  is  not  only  arbitrary 
and  without  foundation,  but  forbidden  by  the  mention  of  the  west  as  well 
as  the  east.  That  it  refers  to  any  restoration  is  the  more  improbable,  be- 
cause the  Prophet  does  not  say  bring  lack  but  simply  bring. —  The  only 
interpretation  which  entirely  suits  the  text  and  context,  without  supplying 
or  assuming  anything  beyond  what  is  expressed,  is  that  which  makes  the 
verse  a  promise  to  the  church  that  she  should  be  completed,  that  all  her 
scattered  members  should  be  ultimately  brought  together.  (Compare 
John  xi.  52 ;  Rom.  iii.  29  ;  1  John  ii.  2.) — Thy  seed  has  reference  to 
Israel  or  Jacob  as  the  ideal  object  of  address. 

6.  /  tiill  sag  to  (he  north,  Give,  and  to  the  south,  Withhold  not,  let  my 
sons  come  from  far,  and  my  daughters  fnun  the  ends  of  the  earth.  This  is 
a  poetical  amplification  of  the  promise  in  the  foregoing  verse.  As  it  was 
there  declared  that  God  would  bring  and  gather  the  whole  seed  of  Israel, 
80  here  he  represents  himself  as  calling  on  the  north  and  the  south  to 
execute  his  purpose.  The  feminine  form  of  the  verbs  is  explained  by  the 
rabbins  on  the  ground  that  the  address  is  to  the  north  and  south  nind,  as 
in  Cant.  iv.  16.  Gesenius  makes  the  words  themselves  of  common  gender. 
Perhaps  the  case  falls  under  the  same  general  principle  with  names  of 
countries,  yo^^nces,  ilc,  which  are  uniformly  feminine.  Hitzig's  sugges- 
tion that  '{^'^n  (loos  not  here  mean  bring  but  sujfer  to  come,  is  favo,ured  by 
the  juxtaposition  of  withhold  nut. 

7.  Every  one  callcil  l>y  my  name,  and  for  ni'/  glorg  I  have  created  him; 
I  have  formed  him,  yea,  I  have  made  him.  The  construction  is  continued 
from  the  foregoing  verse.  My  sons  and  my  daughters,  even  every  one 
called  by  my  name.  Augnsti's  construction,  Evenj  one  of  them  is  called  by 
my  name,  is  forbidden  by  the  article. — The  reflexive  sense,  that  calls  him- 
self, implying  profession  rather  than  divine  vocation,  is  wholly  unnecessary, 
and  less  agreeable  to  general  usage. — And  I  have  created  him  is  a  com- 
mon Hebrew  idiom,  equivalent  to  whom  I  have  created. — The  distinctions 
drawn  by  some  between  created,  formed,  and  made,  are  more  ingenious  than 
well-founded.  Thus  Vitringa  runs  a  parallel  between  the  creation  of  matter 
out  of  nothing,  its  configuration,  and  the  completion  of  its  parts  ;  the 
regeneration  of  the  soul,  its  conformation  to  God's  imnge,  and  its  ultimate 
perfection.  It  seems  to  be  rather  an  exhaustive  accumulation  of  synony- 
mous expressions, — Eor  my  glory  is  emphatic.  God  had  n(»t  only  made 
them  what  they  were,  but  ho  had  done  it  for  his  own  sake,  not  for  theirs. 
So  likewise  ho  now  sjioaks  of  their  being  called  by  his  name,  as  he  did 
before  of  his  calling  them  by  their  name,  the  latter  denoting  special  designa- 
tion, the  former  special  authority  and  right. 

8.  lie  hath  brought  out  the  blind  people,  and  there  are  eyes  (to  them) ; 


Ver.  9.]  ISAIAir  XLIII.  151 

and  the  deaf,  and  {there  are)  ears  to  them.  The  two  clauses  are  so  con- 
structed as" to  supply  one  another's  ellipsis.  Most  writers  make  N'VII^  im- 
perative {bring  forth)  after  the  example  of  the  Vulgate  {educ).  But  as 
this  form  in  thirty-five  places  is  the  prreter,  and  in  thirty  the  infinitive, 
while  the  imperative  without  an  augment  always  elsewhere  takes  the  form 
N)»in,  such  an  assumption  is  in  the  highest  degree  unsafe  and  precarious. 
Some  more  correctly  make  it  the  infinitive  {to  tirinrj  forth),  which  yields  a 
good  sense,  and  is  justified  by  the  analogy  of  n'pS  in  xlii.  20.  The  pre- 
terite construction,  however,  is  not  only  siaapler  in  itself,  but  agrees  better 
with  the  'C''!.  which  follows,  and  which  is  usually  found  in  affirmative  pro- 
positions. The  first  verb  may  then  be  construed  either  with  Jehovah,  or 
with  the  subject  of  the  preceding  sentence,  i.  e.  the  chosen  people  or  the 
individuals  composing  it,  whose  work  or  office  is  declai-ed  to  be  that  of 
turning  the  heathen  "  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan 
unto  God"  (Acts  xxvi.  18).  A  veiy  ditl'erent  sense  is  put  upon  the  verse 
by  those  interpreters  who  take  ^''.TV.  ^?.  as  descriptive  of  the  blind  people 
{that  have  eyes),  and  apply  it  to  the  Jews,  who,  in  spite  of  their  advantages, 
were  blind  to  spiritual  objects.  This  agrees  well  with  chap.  xlii.  19,  20, 
as  explained  above.  But  it  then  becomes  difficult  to  understand  in  what 
sense  they  are  said  to  be  brought  out.  On  this  hypothesis  the  best  ex- 
planation is  that  they  are  summoned  to  behold  the  demonstration  of  Jeho- 
vah's prescience,  either  as  adverse  parties  or  speotatoi-s.  This  would 
require  the  imperative  construction  of  ^''V'ln,  the  grammatical  objections 
to  which  have  been  already  stated.  On  the  whole,  the  mo&t  satisfactory 
interpretation  of  the  verse  is  that  which  understands  it  as  descriptive  of 
the  change  wrought  or  to  be  wrought  in  the  condition  of  mankind  by  Jeho- 
vah, through  the  agency  of  his  people,  whether  the  latter  be  expressly 
mentioned  here  or  not.  I/e  {i.  e.  God,  or  Israel  as  his  messenger)  haih 
brnuifht  nut  a  ijcople  (once)  blind,  and  (now)  thoj  have  eyes,  and  (once)  deaf, 
and  (now)  they  hare  ears,  i.e.  of  course,  seeing  eyes  and  hearing  ears. 
This  agrees  perlcctly  with  all  that  goes  before  and  follows,  with  respect  to 
the  mission  and  vocation  of  God's  people. 

9.  All  the  nations  are  yathen-d  together,  and  the  peoples  are  to  be  as- 
sembled. Who  among  them  uill  declare  this,  and  let  us  hear  the  first  things' 
Let  them  yive  (or  produce)  their  uitnesses  and  be  justified;  and  (if  they  can- 
not do  this)  let  them  hear  (my  witnesses),  and  say,  (It  is)  the  truth.  The 
translation  of  the  first  verb,  by  Rosenmiiller  and  others,  as  a  future  or 
imperative,  is  wholly  unauthorized  by  usage,  the  cases  cited  to  establish  it 
being  themselves  of  very  doubtful  import.  At  all  events,  it  is  incompar- 
ably safer  and  more  satisfactory  to  retain  the  proper  meaning  when  it 
yields  a  tolerable  sense,  than  to  proceed  upon  the  strange  assumption,  that 
when  a  writer  deliberately  uses  two  distinct  forms,  he  intended  them  to 'be 
received  as  one.  Here  the  sense  would  seem  to  be,  that  the  nations  have 
been  gathered,  but  that  the  process  is  not  yet  completed.  This  gathering 
of  the  nations  has  been  commonly  explained  as  a  judicial  metaphor  like 
that  in  chap.  xli.  1.  In  that  case  the  verse  describes  the  heathen  as  as- 
sembled at  the  judgment-seat  to  plead  their  cause  against  Jehovah.  This 
agrees  well  with  the  forensic  terms  employed  in  the  subsequent  context. 
It  is  possible,  however,  that  this  first  clause  may  have  been  intended  to 
describe  not  the  process  but  the  subject  of  adjudication.  The  gathering  of 
the  nations  will  then  denote  their  accession  to  the  church,  as  predicted  in 
vers.  5-7  ;  and  this,  in  the  next  clause,  will  refer  to  the  same  event.  ^Vho 
among  them  {i.  e.  the  nations)  could  have  foretold  their  own  change  of 


152  ISAIAH  XLIII.  [Veb.  10. 

condition?  On  the  other  supposition,  </i/jj  must  either  be  indefinite,  or 
mean  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile,  of  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
there  is  no  specific  mention  in  the  forogoinf^  context.  In  either  case,  the 
usual  alternative  is  oflered,  viz.  that  of  pointing  out  some  previous  instance 
of  foreknowledge  and  prediction. — The  last  clause  admits  of  two  construc- 
tions. It  may  either  be  read,  let  them  be  just  (or  candid)  and  hear  and 
saj-  it  is  the  truth ;  or,  let  them  be  justified  (by  the  witnessess  whom  they 
produce),  and  (if  not)  let  them  hear  (my  witnesses)  and  say.  it  is  the  truth. 
The  latter  seems  more  natural,  because  the  other  connects  •'lp'|iy'  not  with 
its  own  part  of  the  clause  but  with  what  follows.  H^X  is  here  equivak-nt 
to  P'"!'V  in  chap.  xli.  2(5. 

10.    i  I'  are  imj  vitnexsi'S,  saith  Jehuvah,  and  tin/  servunt  ulinm   1  hare 
chosen,  that  ife  maij  know  and  believe  me,  and  may  understand  that  I  am  He: 
before  me  nas  not  formed  a  ijod,  and  after  me  there  shall  not  be.      Some 
regard  the  heathen  as  the  object  of  address  in  the  first  clause,  and  under- 
stand my  servant  as   denoting  Israel.     But  there   is   no  consistent  sense 
in  which  the  former  could  be  cited  as  witnesses  against  themselves ;  and  this 
application  is  besides  forbidden  by  the  obvious  analogv-  of  ver.  12,  where 
the  same  words  are  explicitly  aj)plied  to  Israel,     Of  those  who  correctly 
understand   them  so,  in  this  case  likewise,  the  greater  number  refer  my 
servant  to  a  difterent  subject,  either  Isaiah,  or  the  proi)liets  as  a  class,  or 
the  Messiah.    Ye  (the  Jews)  are  my  witnesses,  and  (so  is  this)  my  servant. 
But  the  simplest  and  most  natural  construction  of  the  sent<)uce  is  to  make 
my  neirant  not  a  subject,  but  a  predicate.     IV  are  my  uitne.sses  and  (ye  are) 
vty  servant  uhoni  J  hare  chosen  (for  this  verv  puqwse).     The  combination 
of  the  plural  ivitnesses  with  the  singular  servant,  although  strange  in  itself, 
is  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  previous  riprest-n  tat  ions  of  Israel  both  as 
a  person  and  a  body  politic.     On  the  other  hypothesis,  the  relative  clause, 
that  ye  may  know,  &.C.,  depends  upon  witnesses,  and  the  words  h7io;h  J  hare 
chosen  form  a  pleonastic  adjunct  to  the  phrase  my  servant.     But  according 
to  the  explanation  just  proposed,  that  ye  may  hnow  depends  upon  the  words 
immediately  preceding,   whom  I  have  chnsen,  and  the  clause  declares  the 
purpose   not  only  of  the  testimony  here  adduced,  but  of  the  election  and 
vocation  of  his  servant.     The  witness  to  whom  God  appeals  is  Israel,  his 
servant,  constituted  such  for  the  very  end  that  he  might  know,  and  under- 
stand, and  believe  that  of  which  all  other  nations  were  entirely  ignorant, 
vi/.,  that  Jehovah  was  he,  i.e.  the  being  in  question,  the  only  wise  (Joil, 
the  only  infallible  foreteller  of  futurity. — Various  attempts  have  been  made 
to  exi)luin  away  the  singular  expression,  there  was  no  yod  formed  before  me. 
as  a  solecism,  or  at  least  an  inaccuracy  of  expression  ;  whereas  nothing  else 
could  have  conveyed  the  writer's  meaning  in  a  form  at  once  sarcastic,  argu- 
mentative, and  graphic.    Instead  of  saying,  in  a  bald  prosaic  form,  all  other 
gods  are  the  work  of  men's  hands,  but  I  am  uucreattd,  and  exist  from  all 
eternity,  he  condenses  all  into  the  pregnant  declaration,  tiiere  was  no  god 
manufactured  before  me,  i.e.  all  other  gods  wt-re  made,  but  none  of  them 
was  made  before  I  had  a  being.     There  is  not  even  such  an  incongruity  of 
form  as  some  suppose, — a  notion  resting  on  the  false  assumption  that  Infoe 
me  must   in  tliis  connection   mean  liejine  1  was  firmed,   whereas  it  only 
means  before  J  e.visted,  just  as  the  parallel  phrase  after  me  does  not  mean 
after  I  am  formed,  but  after  I  shall  cease  to  cjrist.     The  sarcasm  is  rendered 
still  more  j)Ui)g«nt  by  the  use  of  the  divine  name  ^^,  thus  bringing  into  the 
most  revoking  contrast  the  pretended  divinity  of  idols  and  their  impotence ; 
as  if  he  hud  said,  None  of  these  almighty  gods  were  made  before  1  hud  u 


Vkb.  11-13.]  I^AIAU  XLlll.  153 

being. — D?<3  is  probably  a  passive  participle  used  as  a  uuuu,  like  the  Latin 
divtuin,  and  exclusively  applied  to  divine  communicatious. 

11.  /,  /,  Jehuvali,  and  besides  me  (or  ajiart  J'rom  itw)  there  is  no  Saviuur. 
lu  the  tirst  clause  we  may  simply  supply  am,  as  in  the  English  and  most 
other  versions,  or  am  He  from  the  preceding  verse,  and  in  the  sense  there 
explained.  The  exclusive  honour  here  claimed  is  not  merely  that  of  infal- 
lible foreknowledge,  but  of  infinite  power.  Jehovah  was  able  not  only  to 
foretell  the  salvation  of  his  people,  but  to  save  them.  These  terms  are  not 
to  be  restricted,  if  applied  at  all  directly,  to  the  final  salvation  of  individual 
believers.  There  is  evident  allusion  to  the  deliverance  of  Israel  as  a  people 
from  external  sutl'erings  or  dangers,  of  which  one  signal  instance  is  referred 
to  in  ver.  14,  and  another  in  ver.  IG.  At  the  same  time,  the  doctrine  here 
propounded,  or  the  character  ascribed  to  God,  affords  a  sure  foundation  for 
the  personal  trust  of  all  who  have  really  a  place  among  his  people. 

12.  /  have  told  and  have  saved  and  have  declared  (or  let  ijoii  hear  before- 
hand), and  there  is  not  amontj  you  («/'//)  slrantjer ;  and  ye  are  my  witnesses, 
saith  Jehovah,  and  I  [am)  God.  Having  laid  claim  successively  to  dinne 
prescience  and  power,  he  here  combines  the  two,  and  represents  himself 
both  as  the  foreteller  and  the  giver  of  salvation.  The  expression  of  the 
first  idea  twice,  before  and  after  the  expression  of  the  other,  does  not  seem 
to  have  any  special  meaning,  as  some  interpreters  imagine,  except  so  far 
as  it  gives  special  prominence  to  the  divine  oumiscience  and  the  proof  of  it 
afforded  in  prediction,  as  the  evidence  of  deity  which  he  harl  particularly 
urged  before,  and  which  he  is  about  to  urge  again. — The  emphatic  insertion 
of  the  pronoun  /  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  can  only  be  expressed  in 
English  by  a  circumlocution,  it  is  I  that  have  told,  &c. — Yitringa  and 
Rosenmiiller  omit  the  substantive  verb  in  the  last  member  of  the  first  clause 
as  superfluous,  and  construe  the  words  thus,  /  have  declared  and  no  stranye 
{god)  amony  you,  i.e.  no  strange  god  declared  it.  But  in  that  case  Hebrew 
usage  would  require  N?  instead  of  P*?,  which  is  not  an  adverb  of  negation, 
but  an  idiomatic  equivalent  to  the  negative  verb  of  existence,  and  can  only 
mean  there  is  )iot  or  there  was  not.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  refer  it  to 
past  time,  and  explain  the  clause  as  an  assertion  that  the  prophecies  in 
question  were  uttered  at  a  time  when  idolatry  did  not  prevail  in  Israel.  It 
is  more  agreeable,  however,  bt)th  to  usage  and  the  context,  to  translate  it  in 
the  present,  as  a  declaration  that  Jehovah  was  the  only  God  whom  they  had 
reason  to  acknowledge,  from  their  own  experience  and  observation. — IJ, 
which  is  a  common  term  for  slranyer,  used  in  reference  to  men,  may  be 
here  considered  an  ellipsis  for  the  full  phrase  ">t  ?X,  which  is  not  uncommon 
elsewhere. 

l;5.  Also  (or  even)  from  the  day  I  am  lie,  and  there  is  no  one  freeing  from 
my  hand;  I  will  do,  and  who  will  undo  it?  The  assonance  in  the  last 
clause  is  not  in  the  original,  which  literally  means,  /  will  act  (  or  make), 
and  who  will  cause  it  to  return,  i.e.  reverse  or  nullify  it?  The  interrogative 
form  imphes  negation.  A  similar  expression  of  the  same  idea  is  found  in 
chap.  xiv.  27.  What  is  said  specifically  in  the  first  clause  of  deuvering 
from  Jehovah's  power,  is  extended  in  the  last  to  all  counteraction  or  reversal 
of  his  acts.  The  25  at  the  beginning  indicates  a  climax  not  only  now,  or 
on  any  occasion,  but  DVp.  This  last  is  understood  by  some  as  referring 
to  a  specific  terminus  a  quo,  such  as  the  origin  of  Israel  as  a  nation,  the 
exodus,  ttc.  Others  make  it  indefinite,  of  old  or  lony  since.  But  the 
best  interpreters  explain  it  as  meaning  since  the  first  day,  or  since  time 
began.    The  words  ai'e  then  universal,  both  in  the  extent  of  power  claimed, 


151  ISAIAH  XLIIL  [Ver.  14, 

and  in  relation  to  tho  time  of  its  execution.  Over  every  object,  and  in 
every  ago,  the  power  of  Jehovah  had  been  clearly  proved  to  be  supreme 
and  absolute. 

14.  ThuH  »aith  Jehovah,  your  Redeemer,  the  Ildtf  One  of  Israel:  For  your 
»ah  1  June  sent  to  Jtabylon,  and  have  brought  down  (or  made  to  descend) 
fuyttu-es  aUoftliem;  and  the  Chaldeans,  in  the  ships   their  shout  (or  sony). 
This  is  a  particular  in.stauco  of  the  general  protection  vouchsafed  by  Je- 
hovah to  his  people,  and  more  especially  of  that  providentiul  substitution 
or  redemption  of  which  we  road  above  in  vers.  8,  4.     The  inference  Ijefore 
drawn  from  the  genL-ral  terms  of  ver.  4,  that  the  nations  mentioned  in  ver. 
3  are  only  representatives  or  samples,  is  confirmed  by  this  explicit  mention 
of  the  fall  of  Jiabylon  as  an  example  of  the  same  great  truth. — The  titles 
added  to  Jehovah's  name  are  not  mere  expletives  or  words  of  course, 
but  intimate  that  he  would   bring  this  great  event  to  pass  in  his  dis- 
tinctive character  as  the  Redeemer  and  the  Holy  One  of  Israel. — From 
the  past  tense  of  the  verb  (/  have  sent),  some  infer  that  this  verse  was 
written  after  the  event,  while  others  endeavour  to  avoid  this  conclusion  by 
translating  it  as  future  (/  ivill  send).     One  of  these  inferences  is  just  as 
groundless  as  the  other.     The  event,  although  still  future  to  the  writer,  is 
described  as  past,  in  reference  not  only  to  the  purposes  of  God,  but  also 
the  perceptions  of  the  Prophet.    As  presented  to  his  view  by  the  prophetic 
inspiration,  the  destruction  of  Babylon  was  just  as  truly  a  historical  event 
as  that  of  Pharaoh  and  his  host.    This  is  what  is  meaut'by  tho  practeritnm 
propheticum,  to  render  which  as  future  is  a  wanton  violation  of  the  form  of 
the  original,  and  a  gratuitous  confounding  of  the  text  and  comment. — The 
Targum  strangely  understands  this  clause  as  referring  not  to  the  downfall 
of  the  Babylonians,  but  to  the  deportation  of  the  Jews.    JJehuld,  on  account 
of  your  shis  I  scnl  (you)  to  Babylon.    But  this  agrees  neither  with  the  usage 
of  Dppy??,  nor  with  the  meaning  of  the  other  clause.    Interpreters  are  com- 
monly agreed  that  the  object  of  the  verb  is  Cyrus,  or  the  Medes  and  Per- 
sians.— From  the  earliest  times  D*nn3  has  received  a  twofold  explanation, 
vi/.,  that  oi  fuy Hives,  as  in  the  Septuagint,   and  that  of  hars,  as   in  the 
Vulgate.     The  same  question  arises  in  the  exposition  of  chap.  xv.  5.    (See 
vol.  i.  p.  315.)      But  there  the  pointing  favours  the  last  sense,  whereas 
here  it  seems  to  recommend  the  other.     Of  those  who  prefer  the  mean- 
ing hars   even   here,    some    supi^oso    a   literal    allusion    to    tho    gates    of 
Babylon,   others  a  figurative  one  to  its  protectors.     The  other  sense  of 
fuyiltves  is  applicable   either  to  the   Babylonians  themselves,   or   to  the 
foreigners   resident  among   them.     (See  chap.    xiii.   14,   and  vol.    i.    p. 
277).      D*'nv"3   is  the  proper   name  of  tho  foreign  race  by  which  Baby- 
lonia had  been  occupied  before  Isaiah  wrote.     (See  chap,  xxiii.   13,  and 
vol.    i.    p.    398).       It    is   an    interesting   fact,    that    recent   etymological 
research  has   identified  tho  D'?t"3  of  the  Hebrew  ethnograjdiy,  not  only 
with  the  XaXduToi  of  the  Greeks,  but  with  the  Kurds  of   nuulem  Asia. 
Hero,  however,  they  are  mentioned  simply  as  the  inhabitants  of  liabylonia. 
— The  last  two  words  are  variously  construed  and  oxpl  lined.     Some  con- 
nect them  only  with  whiit  goes  before,  as  a  description  iif  the  Chaldeans, 
whose  cry  is  in  the  ships,  implying  their  devotion  to  nautical  pursuits  ; 
or,  tv/iosc  shout  (or  snny)  tvas  in  the  ships,  implying  their  habitual  use  of 
ships  or  boats  for  pleasure.      Tho   same  idea   is   otherwise  expressed  by 
those  who  road  in  the  ships  of  their  joyful  cry  (i.  e.  their  pleasure-ships). 
On  this,   which  is  Gesenins's  interpretation,  Hitzig  observes,  with  a  play 
upon  words  which  cannot  bo  retained  in  a  translation,  that  the  pleasure- 


Ver.  15-17.]  ISAIAH  XLIIL  155 

ships  arc  air-ships  {die  Luflschij)e  sind  LustscJiiffe)  i.  e.  imaginary  or  ficti- 
tious. The  same  thing  has  been  said  of  the  naval  or  maritime  activity 
of  Babylon  ;  but  Lowth  has  made  it  probable  at  least,  that  it  really 
existed  in  very  early  times. — Another  construction  of  these  closing  words 
connects  them  with  ''^"!!11'"',  <'  and  brought  down  the  Chaldees  into  the 
ships  of  their  triumph  or  delight."  Hitzig  makes  nV3X  the  plural  of  '"l*?^:? 
(chap,  xxix,  2),  and  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that  God  had  brought 
down  the  rejoicing  of  the  Chaldeans  into  lamentations.  But  this  requires 
a  ditierent  pointing  of  nVJX  from  the  one  attested  by  the  critical  tradition 
of  the  Jews,  and  a  very  harsh  construction  of  DHKO.  Hitzig's  construc- 
tion is  adopted  by  Ewald,  who  moreover  changes  o?^  D^nn2  into  D^n''^>'3 
D"|>^3  (their  harp  or  music  into  groans),  on  the  authority  (as  he  affirms)  of 
Zeph.  i.  1-1,  and  Job  xxx.  31,  Either  of  the  old  interpretations,  whether 
that  which  makes  the  clause  descriptive  of  the  Chaldees  or  of  their  destruc- 
tion, yields  a  better  sense,  without  the  arbitrary  violence  of  these  pretended 
emendations. 

15.  I  Jehovah,  your  Ilohj  One,  the  Creator  of  Israel,  yo\ir  King.  This 
verse  may  possibly  have  been  intended  merely  to  identify  the  subject  of  the 
one  before  it.  /  sent  to  Bahylon,  &c.,  even  T,  Jehovah,  your  Holy  One,  &c. 
It  is  simpler,  however,  and  more  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  lan- 
guage, to  make  this  a  distinct  proposition  by  supplying  the  verb  of  existence. 
/  am  Jehovah,  or,  /  Jehovah  am  your  Holy  One,  &c.,  or  I  Jehovah,  your 
Holy  One,  am  the  Creator  of  Israel,  your  King.  Even  in  this  case,  the 
event  predicted  in  ver.  14  is  referred 'to,  as  the  proof  of  his  being  what  he 
here  asserts. 

16.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  {one)  giving  in  the  sea  a  ivay,  and  in  mighty 
u-alers  a  path.  As  the  participle  is  very  commonly  employed  in  Hebrew  to 
denote  continued  and  habitual  action,  this  verse  might  be  regarded  as  a 
general  description  of  God's  usual  control  of  the  elements  and  conquest  of 
all  difficulties.  But  the  terms  of  the  next  verse,  and  the  subsequent  con- 
trast between  old  and  new  deliverances,  have  led  most  interpreters  to 
understand  this  likewise  as  an  allusion  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea. — 
Some,  however,  follow  Aben  Ezra  in  applying  the  words  to  the  passage  of 
the  Euphrates  by  Cyrus,  a  gratuitous  departure  from  the  strict  and  cu.->to- 
mary  sense  of  sea. — 2'-?^,  besides  its  etymological  meaning,  strong  or  mighty, 
suggests  the  idea  of  impetuous,  violent,  and  fierce. 

17.  The  (one)  bringing  out  chariot  and  horse,  force  and  strong ;  together 
they  shall  lie,  they  shall  not  rise;  they  are  extinct,  like  tow  (or  lihc  a  wiclc) 
they  are  quenched.    TVTV  is  properly  an  adjective,  and  may  be  understood  as 

qualifying  ?V  a  force  and  {i.  e.  even)  a  strong  one.  Some,  however,  regard 
it  as  indefinite  or  abstract  {strong  for  strength),  and  an  equivalent  or  parallel 

to  >''n.  Some  suppose  a  new  sentence  to  begin  with  this  verse,  and  make 
K*>'10n  collective  :  those  bringing  out  the  chariot  and  the  horse  shall  lie 
together,  the)'  shall  not  rise,  &:c.  But  most  inteqireters  continue  the  cou- 
stniction  from  the  foregoing  verse,  and  make  the  first  word  agree  directly 
with  Jehovah.  Of  these,  however,  some  understand  the  verse  as  having 
reference  to  a  naval  victory  of  Cyrus  over  the  Chaldeans,  others  as  relating 
to  the  destruction  of  Pharaoh  and  his  host.  It  is  no  objection  to  the  latter 
that  "1^?^*?  is  future,  as  this  verb  denotes  not  merely  the  act  of  lying  down, 
but  the  state  of  lying  still,  and  is  therefore  a  poetical  equivalent  and  parallel 
to  shall  not  rise.  That  something  long  past  is  intended,  may  be  gathered 
from  the  exhortation  of  the  next  verse. 


15G  JSAIAU  XLJJI.  (Veb.  18-20. 

18.  liememhcr  not  former  thingx,  and  old  things  consider  not.  As  if  lie 
had  said,  AV'by  should  I  refer  to  aucient  instuuces  of  Gods  almighty  inter- 
vention in  belaalf  of  his  people,  when  others  equally  remarkable  are  yet  to 
come  ?  Some  refer  this  to  the  advent  of  Christ,  but  most  to  the  fall  of 
Babylon,  and  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile.  The  necessity  of  this 
specific  application  by  no  means  follows  from  the  express  mention  of  that 
event  in  ver.  14  ;  because,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  there  introduced  as  a 
single  illustration  or  example  of  a  general  truth,  which  had  before  been 
stated,  and  which  may  possibly  be  here  repeated.  This  supposition  is  at 
least  sufficient  to  meet  all  the  requisitions  of  the  text  and  context. 

19.  Behold  I  {am)  doing  {aomething)  new,  it  is  note  (or  yet)  to  sprout  (or 
germinate)  ;  do  you  not  know  it  ?  Yes,  I  le ill  place  in  the  wilderness  a  way, 
in  the  desert  streams.  The  now  does  not  necessarily  denote  a  proximate 
futurity,  but  only  that  the  thing  is  yet  to  happen,  or  in  other  words,  that 
it  is  something  new,  as  distinguished  from  all  former  instances.  As  if  he 
had  said,  it  is  still  future.  The  figure  of  germination  impUes  that  as  yet 
there  was  no  appearance  of  the  final  issue.  (See  the  same  expression  in 
chap.  xlii.  9).  Do  you  not  know  ii,  i.  e.  know  what  it  is  ?  Or,  will  you 
not  know  it,  i.  e.  are  you  not  willing  to  be  convinced  ?  Or,  shall  you  not 
know  it,  i.  c.  is  not  the  event  to  be  attested  by  your  own  experience  ? — The 
P|^<  may  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  yea,  yes,  or  as  indicating  something 
more  than  had  as  yet  been  experienced.  Not  content  with  having  made  a 
way  through  the  sea,  ho  would  make  one  through  the  desert.  Now,  as  this 
is  really  a  less  extraordinary  act  of  power  than  the  other,  it  would  seem  to 
favour  the  opinion,  that  ver,  10  and  the  one  before  us  do  not  relate  indefi- 
nitely to  the  exhibition  of  Jehovah"s  omnipotence,  but  specifically  to  the 
exodus  from  Egypt  and  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile.  Even  on 
this  hypothesis,  however,  the  terms  of  this  verse  must  be  understood  not 
as  a  description  of  the  literal  return,  but  as  a  figurative  representation  of 
deliverance  and  relief,  whereas  ver.  16  describes  a  literal  deUverance.  On 
the  whole,  therefore,  it  is  best  to  take  both  verses  as  stmng  metaphorical 
descriptions  of  deliverance  from  sufiering  and  danger  by  a  direct  divine  in- 
terposition. Even  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  literal  journey  through  the 
desert,  what  is  said  of  rivers  must  be  figurative,  which  makes  it  probable 
that  the  whole  sentence  is  of  the  same  description.  Thus  understood,  the 
Prophet's  language  means  that  God  could  change  the  face  of  nature  and 
control  the  angry  elements  in  favour  of  his  people  ;  that  he  had  so  done  in 
times  past,  and  would  again  do  so  in  time  to  come. 

20.  The  living  creature  of  the  field  shall  honour  me,  juchils  (or  wolres)  and 
ostriches ;  because  I  have  given  in  the  wilderness  wafers,  and  streams  in  the 
desert,  to  give  drink  to  my  people,  my  chosen.  The  change  is  further 
described  by  representing  the  irrational  inmates  of  the  desert  as  rejoicing 
in  its  irrigation.  This  bold  conception  makes  it  still  more  evident  that 
what  precedes  does  not  relate  to  the  literal  journey  of  a  people  through  a 
literal  desert.  As  the  first  phrase  seems  to  be  a  general  one,  including  the 
two  species  afterwards  mentioned,  the  translation  beast  is  too  resti-icted,''and 
should  give  way  to  that  which  is  ctymologically  most  exact,  viz.,  ZjLov 
animal,  or  living  creature.  The  form  is  singular,  the  sense  collective. 
The  two  species  represent  the  whole  class  of  animals  inhabiting  the  wilder- 
ness. (Compare  chap.  xiii.  21,  22.)  The  connnou  version  of  the  last 
words  of  this  verse  is  the  correct  one.  My  chosen  people  would  bo  other- 
wise expressed.  To  the  simple  designation  of  my  people,  he  adds,  by  a 
kind  of  after  thought,  my  chosen  or  elect. 


Yer.  21-23.J  ISAIAH  XLllL  157 

21.  The  people  (or  this  people)  I  have  formed  for  rni/srlf;  my  praise  shall 
they  rreount  (or  they  are  to  recount  my  praise).  Aiujther  declaratitm  of 
the  end  for  which  Israel  existed  as  a  nation.  This  brings  us  back  to  the 
main  proposition  of  the  chapter,  namely,  that  Jehovah  had  not  only  made 
them  what  they  were,  but  had  made  them  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  his 
own  glory,  so  that  any  claim  of  merit  upon  tlieir  part,  and  any  apprehension 
of  entire  destruction,  must  be  equally  unfounded. 

'I'l.  And  not  me  hast  thou  called,  0  Jacob  ;  for  thou  hast  hern  weary  of  me, 
O  Israel.  Interpreters,  almost  without  exception,  give  ^'^'^i?  here  the  sense 
of  called  upon,  invoked,  or  worshipped.  There  is  much,  however,  to  bo 
said  in  favour  of  the  sense  attached  to  it  by  J.  H.  Michaehs,  namely, 
tlidu  hast  not  called  me,  I  have  called  thee ;  as  our  Saviour  says  to  his 
disciples,  ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen  you  (John  xv.  I'G). 
Having  thus  far  represented  the  vocation  of  Israel  as  a  sovereign  act  on 
(lod's  part,  he  now  presents  the  converse  of  the  same  proposition.  This 
construction  is  further  recommended  by  its  accounting  for  the  unusual  posi- 
tion of  the  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  without  resorting  to  the 
arbitrary  supposition  that  it  is  characteristic  of  a  later  age  than  that  of 
Isaiah  :  q.  d.  it  is  nut  I  that  have  been  called  hy  you. — According  to  the 
usual  construction  of  the  first  clause,  the  second  may  be  rendered  either 
H-ln'ii  or  brcdtise  thou  wast  weary  of  me.  The  common  versit)n  of  tl'.e  ^3  as 
but,  and  Gesenius's  unnatural  construction  thou  hast  not  called  upon  me  so 
as  to  be  troubled  u-ith  me,  although  very  different,  are  equally  gi-atuitous. — 
It  is  not  eas}-  to  determine  whether  labour  or  fatigue  is  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  VT,.  Sometimes  the  one  idea  is  more  prominent,  sometimes  the 
other.  In  this  case  both  would  naturalh'  be  suggested,  as  in  the  foUowinfT 
paraphrase  :  It  is  not  I  that  have  been  called  by  thee  ;  for  so  far  from 
manifesting  such  a  preference,  thou  hast  been  wearied  and  disgusted  with 
the  labour  which  attends  my  service.  The  indirect  construction,  that  thou 
shouldst  be  weary  of  me,  is  only  admissible  in  case  of  extreme  exegetical 
necessity. 

'2;3.  Thou  hast  not  brought  to  me  the  sheep  of  thy  hurnt-offering,  and{tcith) 
thy  sacrifices  thou  hast  not  honoured  me.  I  have  not  made  thee  serve  with 
oblation,  and  I  hare  not  made  thee  labour  (or  wearied  thee)  with  incense. 
The  whole  Mosaic  ritual  is  here  represented  by  an  enumeration  of  some  of 
the  principal  offerings  :  the  (dab,  or  general  expiation  ;  the  zehnbim,  or 
animal  sacrilices  in  general;  the  minhah,  or  meal-otl'ering;  and  the  lebonnh, 
or  aromatic  fumigation. — n^"  includes  (he  goat  as  well  as  the  sheep,  and  is 
therefore  correctly  rendered  in  the  English  Version  by  the  phrase  small 
cattle. — Of  the  whole  verse  there  are  several  distinct  interpretations  or 
rather  applications.  Some  place  the  emphasis  upon  the  pronouns.  It  is 
not  to  me  that  thou  hast  offered  all  this,  but  to  idols.  This,  though  a  pos- 
sible construction,  is  not  the  one  most  readily  suggested  by  the  words.  Nor 
is  it  easy,  upon  this  supposition,  to  account  for  the  total  want  of  any  distinct 
reference  to  idols  in  the  context.  Another  class  of  writers  understand  the 
passage  strictly  as  charging  the  Jews  with  culpable  neglect  of  the  cere- 
monial law.  13ut  of  this  they  were  not  generally  guilty;  and  the  restriction 
of  the  charge  to  the  reign  of  Ahaz  or  to  any  other  limited  period  is  gra- 
tuitous, and  hardly  consistent  with  the  general  expressions  of  the  context. 
A  third  hypothesis  applies  the  passage  to  the  unavoidable  suspension  of 
the  ceremonial  service  during  the  captivity  in  Babylon,  which  it  supposes 
to  be  here  urged  as  a  proof  that  the  deliverance  of  Israt^l  from  exile  was  an 
act  of  mercy,  not  of  righteous  retribution  for  their  national  obedience  and 


15S  ISAIAH  XIJII.  [Ver.  24-26. 

fidelity.  This  explanation,  ftlthouf,'li  much  more  pknsihlo  than  either  of 
the  others,  is  open  to  the  same  charge  of  gratuitous  restriction,  without 
anything  to  indicate  it  in  the  text  or  context.  It  may  also  be  objected, 
that  the  error  thus  supposed  to  be  refuted  by  the  Prophet,  is  one  which 
could  not  possibly  be  entertained;  for  how  could  the  exiled  Jews  imaj:ine 
that  their  liberty  was  bought  by  services  which  not  only  had  not  been,  but 
could  not  have  been  rendered  ?  If  it  be  said  that  this  is  merely  a  specific 
illustration  of  the  general  truth  that  they  were  not  saved  by  any  merit  of 
their  own,  it  still  remains  incredible  that  this  truth  should  have  been 
exemplified  by  reference  not  to  a  real  case,  but  to  one  wholly  imaginary  and 
impossible.  How  much  more  natural  and  satisfactory  to  give  the  words 
the  general  and  unrestricted  meaning  which  they  naturally  bear  as  a  descrip- 
tioti  of  the  people's  conduct,  not  at  one  time  or  at  one  place,  but  tlirouphout 
their  history.  The  last  clause  is  by  some  understood  to  mean,  that  the 
system  imposed  upon  the  people  was  not  burdensome.  But  this  is  con- 
sistent neither  with  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  nor  with  the  statements 
of  the  New  Testament  respecting  them  (Acts  xv.  10,  Gal.  v.  1),  nor  with 
the  parallel  clause,  in  which  it  is  simply  said  that  Israel  had  not  offered 
what  was  due.  The  most  satisfactory  intoqiretation  of  the  verse,  and  that 
which  best  agrees  with  the  whole  context,  is,  that  it  has  rcfirence  not 
merely  to  the  outward  or  material  act,  but  to  its  moral  value  and  eflect. 
You  have  not  so  performed  your  ceremonial  duties  as  to  lay  me  under  any 
obligation  to  protect  you.  You  have  not  really  given  me  your  cattle,  you 
have  not  truly  honoured  me  with  sacrifices.  The  best  explanation  of  the 
last  clause  is,  1  have  not  succeeded  in  inducing  you  to  serve  me,  I  have 
not  prevailed  upon  you  to  exert  yourselves,  much  less  wearied  or  exhausted 
you  in  ceremonial  services. 

24.  Thou  hast  not  bought  for  me  sweet  cane  rcilh  mouey,  and  (mth)  the 
fat  of  thy  sncrifice.^  thou  hast  not  drenched  me  ;  thou  hast  only  made  mc 
serve  ivith  thy  sins,  and  made  me  toil  (or  wearied  me)  with  thine  iniquities. 
According  to  Jarchi,  the  sweet  or  aromatic  cane  is  mentioned  as  a  common 
product  of  the  Holy  Land,  which  they  were  consequently  not  obliged  to 
purchase  in  order  to  the  preparation  of  the  holy  ointment  (PLxod.  xxx. 
23).  But  Kimchi  and  most  other  writers  proceed  upon  the  contrary 
assumption,  that  this  cane  was  an  exotic,  which  could  only  be  procured 
vith  trouble  and  expense.  This  particular  is  mentioned,  like  the  others 
with  which  it  stands  connected,  as  a  specimen  or  sample  of  the  whole  con- 
geries of  ceremonial  sen'ices.  The  antithesis  between  the  clauses  seems  to 
shew  that  the  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  in  this  whole  context  is,  that  their 
external  services  were  nullified  by  sin.  So  far  from  being  satisfied  or  ])leased 
with  what  they  oflered,  God  was  only  vexed  with  their  transgressions  and 
neglects. 

'25.  /,  I  am  he  blotting  out  thy  tramgreasiona  for  mine  oim  sale,  and  thy 
sins  J  will  not  remember.  This  is  the  conclusion  to  which  all  that  goes 
before  was  meant  to  lead,  to  wit,  that  God's  goodness  to  his  peojde  is 
gratuitous.  If  they,  instead  of  choosing  God  and  his  service,  were  averse 
to  both, — if,  instead  of  pleasing  him  by  their  attentions,  ihey  bad  grieved 
Lim  by  their  sins,  it  follows  of  course  that  he  could  still  shew  them  favour 
only  bv  gratuitously  blotting  out  their  sins  from  his  remembrance,  or,  in 
other  words,  freely  forgiving  them. 

26.  Jit  mind  nw;  ht  us  plead  together  (or  judge  one  another);  state  (thy 
ease)  that  thoii  nwyest  le  justified.  After  asserting,  in  the  foregoing  verso, 
the  total  want  of  merit  in  the  people,  and  their  dependence  upon  God's 


Yer.  27,  28.]  ISAIAH  XLIIL  159 

gratuitous  compassion,  he  now,  as  it  were,  allows  thorn  to  disprove  his 
allegation,  by  reminding  him  of  some  forgotten  merit  on  their  part.  The 
badness  of  their  case  could  not  have  been  more  strongly  or  sarcasti- 
cally stated  than  in  this  ironical  invitation  to  plead  their  own  cause  and 
establish  their  own  rights  if  they  could,  with  a  tacit  condition,  not  expressed 
but  implied,  that  if  they  could  not  justify  themselves  in  this  way,  they 
should  submit  to  the  righteousness  of  God  and  consent  to  be  justified  by 
grace. 

27.  Thy  first  father  sinned^  and  thy  interpreters  rebelled  against  me. 
Gesenius  and  some  others  give  the  first  words  a  collective  sense,  as  signify- 
ing either  the  succession  of  priests  or  ancestors  in  general.  The  older 
writers,  for  the  most  part,  give  the  singular  its  strict  sense,  and  apply  it 
either  to  Ahaz  or  Manassoh,  as  kings,  and  therefore  bound  to  be  the  fathers 
of  their  people,  or  to  Abraham  as  the  progenitor  of  Israel,  or  to  Adam  as 
the  father  of  the  human  race.  Yitringa  even  makes  it  mean  Uriah,  the 
unfiiilhful  high  priest  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz.  This  and  the  first  interpreta- 
tion mentioned  are  entirely  arbitrary.  That  which  understands  the  phrase 
of  Abraham  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  at  variance  with  the  uniform  men- 
tion of  that  patriarch  in  terms  of  commendation.  But  these  terms  are 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  proposition  that  he  was  a  sinner,  which  may 
liere  be  the  exact  sense  of  ^pp.  To  the  application  of  the  phrase  to  Adam 
it  has  been  objected,  that  he  was  not  peculiarly  the  father  of  the  Jews. 
To  this  it  may  be  answered,  that  if  the  guilt  of  the  national  progenitor 
would  prove  the  point  in  question,  much  more  would  it  be  established  b}' 
the  fact  of  their  belonging  to  a  guilty  race.  At  the  same  time  it  may  be 
considered  as  implied,  that  all  their  fathers  who  had  since  lived  shared  in 
the  original  depravity,  and  thus  the  same  sense  is  obtained  that  would 
have  been  expressed  by  the  collective  explanation  of  //?vs7  father,  while  the 
latter  is  still  taken  in  its  strict  and  full  sense  as  denoting  the  progenitor  of 
all  mankind. — Inter]>reters,  or  organs  of  communication,  is  a  title  given 
elsewhere  to  ambassadors  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  31)  and  to  an  interceding  angel 
(Job  xxxiii.  23).  It  here  denotes  all  those  who,  under  the  theocracy, 
acted  as  organs  of  communication  between  God  and  the  people,  whether 
prophets,  priests,  or  rulers.  The  idea,  therefore,  is  the  same  so  often  ex- 
pressed elsewhere,  that  the  people,  and  especially  their  leaders,  were  un- 
faithful and  rebellious. 

28.  And  I  will  profane  the  holy  chiefs,  and  will  give  up  Jacob  to  the 
curse  and  Israel  to  reproaches.  The  character  just  given  of  the  people  in 
all  ages  is  urged  not  only  as  a  proof  that  God's  compassion  must  be  per- 
fectly gratuitous,  but  also  as  a  I'eason  for  the  strokes  which  they  experi- 
enced. The  rav  before  the  first  verb  is  not  conversive  but  conjunctive,  so 
that  the  reference  is  entirely  to  the  future,  or  to  the  universal  present,  as 
explained  by  Kimchi,  who  observes  that  rav  has  pattah  because  it  docs 
not  express  past  time  ;  but  the  sense  is,  that  in  all  ages  God  profanes  the 
holy  chiefs.  This  last  phrase  is  descriptive  of  the  same  persons  called 
interpreters  in  ver.  27,  namely,  all  the  otiicial  representatives  and  leaders 
of  the  holy  (i.  e.  consecrated  and  peculiar)  people.  Its  specific  application 
to  the  priests  in  1  Chron.  xxiv.  5  no  more  proves  that  this  is  its  whole 
meaning,  than  it  proves  that  D^X*'  always  means  religious  ofticers.  The 
name  includes  the  priests,  no  doubt,  but  it  includes  much  more. 


160  ISAIAH  XLIV.  [Yer.  1,  2. 


CHAPTER  XLIV. 

This  chapter  opens,  like  the  fortieth  and  forty-third,  with  cheering  pro- 
niisi's  to  Israel,  followed  hy  reasons  for  confiding  in  them,  drawn  from  the 
wisdom,  power,  and  j^'ooduess  of  Jehovah. 

The  specific  promise,  which  constitutes  the  theme  or  l»asis  of  the  pro- 
jihecy,  is  that  of  abundant  spiritual  influences  and  their  fruits,  not  only 
iiiternal  prosperity,  but  large  accessions  from  without,  vers.  1-5. — The 
pledge  for  the  fultilment  of  this  promise  is  afforded  by  the  proofs  of  God's 
omniscience,  as  conlnisted  with  all  other  gods,  vers.  0-0. — The  folh*  of 
image-worship  is  then  established  by  two  arguments.  The  first  is  that 
idols  are  themselves  the  creatures  of  more  men,  vers.  10-14.  The  other 
is  that  they  are  not  only  made,  and  made  by  man.  but  made  of  the  very 
same  materials  ai)plicd  to  the  most  trivial  domestic  uses,  vers.  15-20. — 
From  this  demonstration  of  the  power  of  Jehovah  to  perform  his  promise 
we  are  now  brought  back  to  the  promise  itself,  vers.  21-21.  This  is  again 
coufinued  by  an  appeal  to  God's  creative  power,  and  illustrated  by  the 
raising  up  of  C}tus  as  a  deliverer  to  Israel,  vers.  25-28. 

Here  again  it  is  important  to  the  just  interpretation  of  the  passage  that 
we  keep  in  view  the  true  relation  which  the  main  theme  (the  safety  and 
prosperity  of  Israel)  bears  to  the  arguments  and  illustrations  drawn  from 
God's  foreknowledge  as  established  by  prediction,  from  the  impotence  of 
idols,  and  the  raising  up  of  Cyrus.  Through  all  these  varied  forms  of 
promise  and  of  reasoning  there  runs  a  thread  uniting  them,  and  this  thread 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  its  origin,  its  design,  and  its  relation  to  its 
Head  and  to  the  world  around  it. 

1.  And  now  h<'(ir,  Jacob  my  fieri  auf,  and  Israel  I  have  choRrn  him  (i.e. 
whom  I  have  chosen).  The  transition  here  is  the  same  as  at  the  opening 
of  the  foregoing  chapter,  and  the  noio,  as  there,  has  rather  a  logical  than  a 
temporal  meaning.  For  reasons  which  have  been  already  given,  there  is 
no  need  of  supposing  that  a  diflerent  Israel  is  here  addressed  (Cocceius), 
viz.  the  penitent  believing  Jews  in  exile  (Grotius) ;  or  a  ditrcrent  period 
referred  to,  namely,  that  succeeding  the  calamities  before  described  ;  nor 
even  that  the  and  is  here  equivalent  to  tnitwithdandiiig,  as  explained  by 
Kimchi.  It  is  simply  a  resumption  and  continuation  of  the  Prophet's 
argument,  intended  to  exhibit  the  true  relation  brtween  God  and  his 
people.  The  election  here  affirmed,  which  Calvin  understands  directly  of 
a  personal  election  from  eternity,  is  better  explained  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  as 
the  choice  and  separation  of  the  church,  or  God's  peculiar  people,  from 
the  rest  of  men. 

2.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  tht/  viaher  and  thij  fmni' r  from  the  uondi  uill  help 
thee  ;  fear  not,  tnij  servant  Jaeoh,  and  Jeshnntn  vhom  I  hare  chosen.  It 
lias  been  a  subject  of  dispute  among  inteqireters,  whither  iP3P  ought  to  bo 
connected  with  T^V  (as  it  is  in  the  Septuagint  and  by  tiie  rabbins),  or 
witli  'iQ'^yt  (as  in  the  Targnm  and  the  Vulgate).  The  Masoretic  accents 
are  in  favour  of  the  first  construction  ;  but  Gesenius  rejects  it  as  not  yield- 
ing a  good  sense,  and  reads,  who  helped  thee  from  the  u-ojnb.  l?ut  this 
translation  of  the  future  as  a  praetor  is  entirely  gratuitous,  and  therefore 
ungrammatical.  The  simplest  construction  is  to  make  the  words  of 
Jiliovah  begin  with  thy  maker,  the  transition  fn)m  the  third  to  the  first 
jierson  being  altogether  natural  and  one  of  peqieWal  oceurnnce  in  Isaiah. 
7'//y  inaker  will  help  thee  is   equivalent  to  /,  uho  am   thy  maker,  will  help 


Ver.  3. J  ISAIAH  XLIV.  IGl 

thee.  But  even  on  the  common  supposition,  that  the  words  of  God  begin 
with  the  second  clause,  it  is  better  to  take  he  tvill  help  thee  as  a  short  inde- 
pendent clause,  parenthetically  thrown  in  to  complete  the  description  or  to 
connect  it  with  wliat  follows.  Thus  suith  thy  maker  and  thy  forvier  from 
the  womb — he  tvill  help  thee — Fear  not,  &c.  As  to  the  combination  maker 
from  the  n-omh,  it  can  seem  incongruous  only  to  a  hj-percritical  grammarian, 
so  that  there  is  no  need  even  of  adopting  J.  H.  Michaelis's  suggestion,  that 
(P5P  means  ex  quo  in  utero  esse  coepisti.  The  use  of  these  expressions  in 
addressing  Israel,  only  shews  that  the  conception  present  to  the  writer's 
mind  is  that  of  an  individual  man.  Although  the  specific  explanation  of 
the  figures  here  used  has  been  sometimes  pushed  too  far,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  maturing  of  Israel  as  a  nation  in  Egypt  is  often  i-epresented 
as  a  period  of  gestation,  and  the  exodus  as  a  birth  ;  but  whether  there  is 
any  such  allusion  here  may  be  considered  doubtful. — Jeshtiruii  occurs  only 
here  and  in  Deut.  xxxii.  15,  xxxiii.  5,  2G.  Some  of  the  old  attempts  to 
ascertain  its  etymology  were  ludicrous  enough.  Thus  Yitringa  quotes 
Forster  as  deriving  it  from  lit-",  an  ox,  and  Cocceius  from  •"IIIL"^  they  shall 
see,  i.e.  the  people  who  should  see  Christ  in  the  flesh,  quod  nemo  dixerit 
nnn  esse  hyperbolicum  et  remotum  (Vitringa).  Grotius's  derivation  of  the 
word  from  /NT^^  is  a  philological  impossibility  ;  but  his  explanation  of  it 
as  a  diminutive  or  term  of  endearment  is  now  commonly  adopted,  but  with 
reference  to  the  root  "%'),  tipright,  as  an  epithet  of  Israel,  not  "  in  consider- 
ation of  their  entire  abandonment  of  idolatry,"  as  Henderson  supposes,  but 
in  reference  to  their  normal  or  ideal  character,  the  end  for  which  they  were 
created,  and  the  aspect  which  they  ought  to  have  exhibited.  Hengsten- 
berg  gives  the  same  sense  to  the  word  as  a  proper  name,  but  not  as 
a  diminutive  or  term  of  endearment,  which  he  rejects  as  unsustained  by 
etymological  analogy  and  wholly  inappropriate  in  the  places  where  it  is 
originally  used.  (See  his  History  and  Prophecies  of  Balaam,  pp.  98-101.) 
The  word  is  rendered,  as  a  general  expression  of  endearment,  by  the 
Septuagint  (?;7aT>;/iEi/oc),  and  with  closer  adherence  to  the  etymology  by  the 
other  Greek  versions  (sWjg,  luDuTaro:).  The  diminutive  form  is  imitated  in 
Latin  by  Gesenius  [rectulus,  juslidus),  and  in  German  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald 
(Friimmchen).  Bosenmiiller's  version  (fortunate)  is  supported  only  by  the 
false  analogy  of  P?J>'  as  denoting  good  luck  or  prosperity. 

3.  For  I  will  pour  wafers  on  the  thirsty  and  flowing  {tvafers)  on  the  dry 
{land);  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  on  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  on  thine  offspring. 
This  is  the  grand  reason  why  God's  people  should  not  despair.  The  two 
clauses  explain  each  other,  the  tuater  of  the  tirst  being  clearly  identical 
with  the  sjiirit  of  the  second.  This  is  a  common  figure  for  influences  from 
above.  (See  chap,  xxxii.  15,  Ezek.  xxxiv.  26,  Mai.  iii.  10.)  Knobel 
indeed  understands  the  two  clauses  strictly  and  distinctly,  taking  the  first 
as  a  promise  to  the  land,  and  the  second  as  a  promise  to  the  people.  But 
i^Py  naost  probably  refers  to  persons,  as  it  is  not  feminine  like  i^V"?-« 
Grotius  understands  this  as  a  promise  to  send  prophets  to  the  Jews  in 
exile,  such  as  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi ! 
Gosenius  also  seems  to  think  the  promise  here  made  strictly  coincident 
with  that  in  Joel  iii.  1,  2.  But  it  is  more  extensive,  and  includes  all  the 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. — The  offsprin<j  of  the  people,  as  distinguished 
from  itself,  is  supposed  by  Knobel  to  denote  the  individuals  of  whom  the 
aggregate  body  was  comp^d.  Jarchi  and  Yitringa  apply  it  to  the  strangers 
or  proselytes  who  were  to  be  added  by  conversion  to  the  natural  Israel. 

VOL.  II.  L 


1G2  ISAIAH  XLIV.  |Vkr.  4,  5. 

Tho  simplest  and  most  obvious  inteqiretation  is,  that  the  ideal  olrject  of 
address  is  Jacob  as  the  natiojial  progenitor,  and  that  the  Jews  themselves 
arc  here  described  as  his  descendants.  Even  this,  however,  does  not 
necessarily  exclude  the  spiritual  ollspring  of  the  patriarch,  who  are  explicitly 
referred  to  in  the  context. 

4.  And  they  shall  sprinff  up  in  the  midst  of  the  grass,  like  willows  on  {or 
by)  the  water-courses.  This  verse  describes  the  ell'ect  of  the  irrigation 
and  effusion  promised  in  the  one  before  it.  There  is  no  need,  however, 
of  making  the  construction  a  subjunctive  one  {so  that  they  shdl  spring  up), 
as  Luther  and  some  later  writers  do. — The  subject  .of  the  verb  is  not  the 
Spirit  and  blessing  of  Jehovah,  as  Aben  Ezra  strangely  imagines,  but  the 
offspring  or  descendants  of  Israel,  by  whom  the  blessing  was  to  be  ex- 
perienced.— Ijowth  and  Ewald  read  "I'VH  D'P  Ti??,  IH^e  grass  amidst  the 
water,  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  version  [u;  a.ia(j.iebv  iibarog 
j^o^ro;),  which  seems,  however,  to  be  simply  a  paraphrase  or  free  trans- 
lation. Gesenius  retains  the  comparative  form  of  expression  {as  amony), 
but  without  a  change  of  text,  by  making  the  particle  itself  comparative,  an 
idiom  of  which  there  is  no  clear  example  elsewhere.  All  these  expedients 
are  intended  to  remove  the  imaginary  solecism  in  between.  But  the  true 
explanation  has  been  long  since  given  by  Vitringa,  namely,  that  i'?  has 
here  its  primitive  and  proper  use,  as  a  noun  corresponding  to  the  English 
midst.  So  far  is  the  common  text  from  being  incorrect  or  irregular,  that  it 
is  really  the  only  form  in  which  the  idea  could  have  been  expressed,  since 
P3  as  a  preposition  always  means  beiueen  or  amotiy,  and  is  followed  by  the 
plural  noun.  "When,  on  the  contrary,  a  singular  noun  is  to  be  used,  as 
here,  the  Hebrew  idiom  prefixes  not  the  preposition  but  a  noun  meaning 
midst  (1*3  or  "l^n)  with  a  particle  before  it. — The  grass  and  the  willows  are 
separated  only  by  the  rhythmical  arrangement  of  the  sentence.  The  simple 
meaning  of  the  whole  verse  is,  that  they  shall  grow  as  willows  grow  among 
the  grass,  i.e.  in  the  moist  or  marshy  spot.  The  tjuestion,  who  are  meant 
by  the  gi-ass  as  distinguished  from  the  willows,  is  absurd.  It  might  as 
well  be  asked,  when  an  object  is  compared  to  the  rose  of  Sharon,  what  is 
meant  by  Sharon  as  distinguished  from  the  rose.  Lowth  seems  to  look 
upon  aqiu'ducts  as  more  poetical  and  better  English  than  the  common  ver- 
sion, water-conrses. 

5.  This  shall  say,  To  Jehorah  I  {belong) ;  and  this  shall  eall  on  (or  by) 
the  name  of  Jaeob ;  and  this  shall  inner ibe  his  hand  {or  with  his  hand).  To 
Jehovah,  and  with  the  name  of  Israel  shall  entitle.  Tho  repetition  of  tlie 
pronoun  this  inijtlies,  according  to  Kimchi's  explanation,  persons  of  various 
classes  or  from  dill'erent  quarters.  It  is  commonly  ngreed  that  this  vtrse 
predicts  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles,  whom  it  represents  as  publicly  pro- 
fessing their  allegiance  to  Jehovah  and  attachment  to  his  people.  The  act 
of  calling  one  by  name,  and  that  of  calling  on  his  name  (invoking  him),  are 
intimately  blended  in  the  Hebrew  usage.  Most  interpreters  under>t!ind  it 
here  as  meaning  to  praise  or  celebrate.  Some  of  the  older  writers  follow 
Synimachus  in  giving  it  a  passive  sense  {this  shall  be  calhd),  either  reading 
**.''i??  for  ^^T'i?-*  ^^r  ^"pplying  the  reflexive  pronoun  after  it.  The  same  diver- 
sity exists  in  reference  to  the  last  verb  in  the  Feuteuce,  Hp*,  which  some 
understand  to  mean  he  shall  surname  himself  {or  be  surnanud),  others  ho 
shall  name  the  name  of  Jacob  in  a  flattering  or  respectful  manner.-:— Of  tho 
intermediate  cliiu.«e  tlicre  are  two  ancient  exphm^ons,  one  of  which  makes 
it  mean  he  shall  urite  {niih)  his  hand  in  nlltisic  n  to  the  signing  of  contracts 
(Jer.  xxxii.  10,  Nel>.  ix.   88)  ;  the  other,  he  shall  urite  upon  {inscribe)  his 


Veb.  6,  7.]  ISAIAH  XLIV.  163 

hand,  in  allusion  to  the  ancient  cus-tom,  mentioned  by  Procopins,  of  mark- 
ing  soldiers,  slaves,  and  other  dependents,  with  the  name  of  their  superior, 
to  which  there  seems  to  be  a  reference  in  Exod.  xiii.  9,  and  Rev.  xiii.  16. 
This  last  sense  is  supposed  to  be  expressed  in  the  Septuagint  version 
liTiyod-^ii  yn^i. 

6.  Tims  sailh  Jehovah,  kinf/  of  Israel,  and  his  redeemer,  Jehovah  of  hosts  : 
I  (am)  first,  and  I  {am)  last,  and  without  me  there  is  no  God.  This  is  a 
description  of  the  God  whom  the  nations,  in  the  preceding  verse,  are  repre- 
sented as  acknowledging.  The  attributes  ascribed  to  him  afford,  at  the 
same  time,  a  sufficient  reason  for  confiding  in  his  promises.  In  like  man- 
near  Zeus,  the  supreme  god  of  the  Greeks,  is  described  by  Orpheus  as 
being  ci.c>yj\  ':Td'jTuv  rrui/ruv  re  TiXiryj,  and  in  another  place,  Z,suc  cgi-os  lyhsro 
Ze-j;  ■jsraToc.  Henderson  points  out  the  appropriation  of  the  tenns  here 
used  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  Rev.  i.  18,  ii.  8,  xxii.  13. — There  is  no 
need  of  giving  to  ny^QD,  in  this  and  the  parallel  places,  the  restricted  sense 
hesidcs,  which  is  really  included  in  the  usual  and  strict  sense  of  uith'.ul, 
i.  e.  without  my  knowledge  and  permission,  or  without  subjection  to  my 
sovereign  authority.  The  meaning  is  not  simply,  that  there  is  no  other 
true  God  in  existence,  but  that  even  the  Asyo/Mvoi  %ol  (1  Cor.  viii.  5)  exist 
only  bj-  his  sufi'erance,  and  cannot  therefore  be  his  equals  or  competitors. 

7.  And  who,  like  me,  will  call,  and  tell  it,  and  state  it  to  me,  since  I  placed 
the  ancient  j)C02:>Ie  ;  and  coining  things  and  things  ivhich  are  to  cone  tvill  tell 
to  them  (or /or  themselves)  ?  There  is  no  reason  why  the  interrogation  should 
not  be  considered  as  extending  through  the  verse,  the  rather  as  a  different 
construction  splits  up  the  sentence,  and  arbitrarily  explains  some  of 
the  futures  as  imperatives.  Still  more  objectionable  is  the  construction 
of  N^i?^  f>s  a  preterite,  which  is  given  by  all  the  later  writers  except  Ewald. 
The  question  who  has  called  like  me  is  in  no  respect  more  pertinent  than 
the  question,  who  will  (or  can)  call  as  I  have  done,  which  leaves  the  refe- 
rence to  past  time  equally  explicit,  without  doing  any  grammatical  violence 
to  the  form  of  expression.  The  usual  construction  of  the  next  words  is, 
let  him  tell  it,  &c. ;  but  this  imperative  meaning  is  sufficiently  implied  in 
the  strict  translation  of  the  words  as  interrogative  futures,  tvho  loill  tell 
it  ?  &c.  ^"^P^  is  to  call  aloud  or  publicly  announce.  It  differs  from  the 
next  verb,  if  at  all,  by  denoting  an  authoritative  call,  and  suggesting  the 
idea  not  only  of  prediction  but  of  creation. — "^"y^l  is  correctly  explained 
by  Gesenius  as  a  forensic  term  meaning  to  state  a  case.  The  sense  of 
comparing,  preferred  by  Ewald,  is  less  frequent  elsewhere  and  less  appro- 
])riate  here.  The  words  sijice  I  lilaced,  &c.,  are  to  be  connected  with 
■"JIDS,  who  can  call,  as  I  have  done,  ever  since  I  placed,  &c.  To  place  is 
here  to  constitute,  create,  or  give  existence.  Of  the  phrase  u7\V'0V.  there 
are  three  interpretations.  The  first  is  that  of  the  rabbins,  who  explain 
it  to  mean  ancient  people ;  this  is  retained  in  the  English  and  some  other 
versions.  The  second  makes  it  mean  eternal  peopile,  but  refers  it  simpl}' 
to  the  divine  purpose  or  decree  of  election.  The  third  gives  it  the  sense 
of  everlasting  peopile,  i.  e.  a  people  who  shall  last  for  ever.  In  all  these 
senses  the  description  is  appropriate  to  Israel,  not  simply  as  a  nation 
but  a  church,  the  existence  and  prerogatives  of  which  are  still  continued 
in  the  body  of  Christ.  Ecdcsia  corpus  Christi  est,  quo  nihil  antiijitius 
aut  majus  esse  potest  (Calvin).  It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  any- 
thing more  was  here  intended  than  a  reference  to  the  origin  of  the  human 
race.  (See  above,  on  chap.  xiii.  5,  6.) — According  to  Kimchi,  Grotius, 
and  Yitringa,  the  last  clause  contains  a  distinct  reference  both  to  a  proxi- 


164  ISAIAH  XLIV.  [Ver.  8,  9. 

mate  and  remote  futurity.  This  distinction  is  rejected  by  Gcsenius, 
without  any  other  reason  than  the  groundless  one,  tliat  synonymes  are 
characteristic  of  this  writer,  i.  c.  the  writer  of  these  hiter  prophecies,  as 
distinguished  from  the  genuine  Isaiah,  But  this  is,  to  some  extent,  charac- 
teristic not  of  one  but  of  all  the  Hebrew  writers,  and  aljundant  illustration 
might  be  drawn  from  the  earlier  and  even  from  the  undisputed  passages. 
The  truth,  however,  is  that  the  distinction  made  by  Kimchi  is  so  natural 
and  simple,  and  agrees  so  well  with  the  context  and  analog}-,  that  it  would 
be  entitled  to  consideration,  even  if  the  two  forms  of  expression  in  them- 
selves appeared  to  be  entirely  synonymous.  Much  more,  when  such  a  dif- 
ference is  indicated  by  the  very  form.  Not  only  are  two  ditferent  verbs  used, 
(which  might  be  otherwise  explained,  and  by  itself  can  have  no  weight), 
but  one  is  in  the  participial  form,  the  clearest  mode  in  Hebrew  of  express- 
ing present  action  or  a  proximate  futurity,  the  other  in  the  future  proper. 
Wherever  there  is  a  ditlerence  of  form,  there  is  presumptively  a  diticrence 
of  meaning ;  and  if  any  such  ditlerence  is  here  intended,  it  can  only  be  the 
difference  between  things  actually  coining  to  pass  now,  and  those  which  are 
to  come  to  pass  hereafter. 

8.  Quake  not  and  fear  not  ;  have  1  not  since  then  let  thee  hear  and  told 
(thee),  and  are  ye  not  my  witnesses?  Is  there  a  God  withcnit  me?  And  there 
is  no  rock,  I  know  not  (any).  The  alternation  of  the  singular  and  plural 
form  in  reference  to  Israel,  is  peculiarly  appropriate  to  an  ideal  or  collec- 
tive person,  and  in  strict  agreement  with  the  usage  of  the  Pentateuch, 
especially  with  that  of  Deuteronomy,  in  which  the  same  apparent  confu- 
sion of  numbers  is  not  a  mere  occasional  phenomenon,  but  one  of  per- 
petual occurrence. — The  verb  •in'in,  which  occurs  only  here,  is  derived  by 
Hitzig  from  nn^,  by  Gesenius  from  ^y„  and  explained  by  Ewald  as  an 
error  of  the  text  for  •l^l*'^-  It  is  more  probably  to  be  derived  from  the 
synonymous  and  cognate  HT. — TNO  is  usually  taken  in  the  vague  sense  of 
long  ago;  but  it  may  here  be  strictly  understood  as  meaning  since  that  time, 
which  Jarchi  refers  to  the  giving  of  the  law  on  Sinai,  Knobel  to  the  first 
appearance  of  Cyrus,  and  Maurer,  with  more  probability  than  either,  to  the 
event  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz,  the  constitution  of  the  D/iycy. 
— And  ye  are  my  witnesses  is  usually  construed  as  an  independent  clause  ; 
but  a  possible  construction  is  to  include  it  in  the  (juestion  as  above. — 
Vitringa's  explanation  of  PN  as  an  interrogative  particle  is  anything  but 
justified  by  the  analogy  of  1  Sam,  xxii.  8,  to  which  he  appeals, — Here, 
as  in  many  other  cases,  God  is  called  a  Kock,  as  being  the  refuge  of  his 
people,  and  the  finu  foundation  of  their  hopes. 

9,  The  image-carvers  nil  of  them  are  vanity,  and  their  desired  (or  beloved) 
ones  are  worthless ;  and  their  witnesses  thenisclres  will  nut  see  and  will  not 
know,  that  they  may  he  ashamed.  Having  fortified  his  promise  by  a  solemn 
atfirmation  of  his  own  supremacy,  in  contrast  with  the  ignorance  and  impo- 
tence of  idols,  he  now  can-ics  out  this  contrast  in  detail.  The  literal 
meaning  of  the  first  phrase  is  the  formers  of  a  graven  image,  here  put  for 
idols  in  general. —  I'miifi/  is  here  to  be  taken  as  a  negative  expression  of 
the  strongest  kind,  denoting  the  absence  of  all  life,  intelligence,  and  power, 
and  corresponding  to  the  parallel  expression  ihrij  cannot  ]>roJit,  i.  c.  they  are 
worthless.  The  disimi  or  favourite  things  of  the  idolaters  are  tlie  idols 
themselves,  upon  which  they  lavish  time,  expense,  and  misplaced  confi- 
dence. The  next  ])hrase  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  their  uihiesses 
arc  themselves,  i.  e.  they  are  their  own  witnesses,  which  may  either  represent 
the  idols  as  witnessing  against  their  worshippers,  or  the  worshippers  against 


Ver.  10,  11.]  ISAIAH  XLIV.  1G5 

the  idols,  or  either  of  these  classes  against  themselves.  Cocceius  connects 
these  words  with  the  following  verbs  {testes  illonim  ipsi  non  vident),  which 
construction  is  substantially  renewed  by  Ewald,  and  approved  by  Umbreit. 
The  meaning  then  is,  that  the  idolaters  who  bear  witness  to  the  divinity  of 
their  idols  are  themselves  blind  and  ignorant.  The  inincta  extraordinaria 
over  ^'^K^  were  designed,  says  Henderson,  to  fix  the  attention  of  the  reader 
on  the  dumb  idols  being  constituted  witnesses  against  the  stupidity  of  their 
worshippers.  But  why  in  this  particular  case '?  A  much  more  probable 
explanation  is  that  the  Masoretic  critics  considered  the  word  doubtful,  per- 
haps because  it  appeared  pleonastic,  whereas  it  is  in  fact  emphatic.  There 
is  no  need  of  giving  know  the  vague  and  doubtful  sense  of  having  know- 
ledge;  the  meaning  rather  is,  they  will  not  see  or  know  it,  i.  e.  what  has 
just  been  said,  as  to  the  impotence  of  idols.  The  last  clause  is  explained 
by  Gesenius  as  meaning  that  they  arc  given  up  to  bUndness,  that  they  may 
be  ashamed  or  confounded.  Umbreit,  on  the  other  hand,  supposes  it  to 
mean  that  they  have  not  knowledge  or  sense  enough  to  be  ashamed  ;  an 
aggravation  of  the  previous  description. 

10.  Who  formed  the  god  and  cast  the  image  to  no  use  (or  profit)  ?  Most 
interpreters  regard  this  as  an  exclamation  of  contemptuous  sui-prise,  im- 
pl3-ing  that  no  one  in  his  senses  would  do  so.  (Grotius:  quis  nisi  demens?) 
But  the  true  sense  is  the  one  proposed  by  Gesenius,  who  explains  what 
follows  as  the  answer  to  this  question  Having  affirmed  the  worthlessness 
of  idols  in  general,  he  now  proceeds  to  prove  it  from  their  origin. — So  far 
from  being  makers,  they  are  made  themselves,  and  who  made  themf  This 
is  the  precise  force  of  the  verse  before  us.  Here  as  elsewhere  there  is 
pungent  sarcasm  in  the  apphcation  of  the  name  ^^  (mighty  God)  to  idols. 

11.  Lo  all  his  fellows  shall  be  ashamed,  and  the  workmen  themselves  are 
of  men;  they  shall  assemble  all  of  them,  they  shall  stand,  they  shall  tremble, 
they  shall  be  ashamed  together.  Jarchi,  followed  by  Lowth,  Eichhorn,  Ge- 
senius, Maurer,  and  Ewald,  refers  the  suffix  in  VllQ  to  the  maker  of  the 
image,  and  understands  by  his  felloios  his  fellow-workmen  or  fellow-wor- 
shippers. But  why  should  the  workman's  fellows  be  ashamed  and  not 
himself?  A  much  more  natural  construction  is  the  one  given  in  the 
Targum,  and  approved  by  Vitringa,  liosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  who 
refer  the  suffix  to  the  idol  itself,  and  by  his  fellows  understand  all  who  have 
anything  to  do  with  it,  either  as  manufactm^ers  or  worshippers.  (Compare 
Num.  XXV.  3;  Deut.  xi.  22,  xxx.  20;  Isa.  Ivi.  3,  6;  Hosea  iv.  17;  1  Cor. 
X.  20.) — Lowth  affinns  that  the  common  text  of  the  next  clause  yields  no 
tolerable  sense,  and  is  unworthy  of  the  Prophet ;  for  which  reason  he  pro- 
poses to  read  DIND  as  a  passive  participle  meaning  reddened,  and  translates 
accordingly,  even  the  luorkmen  themselves  shall  blush,  adding  that  if  any  one 

.should  think  the  singular  irregular,  he  may  read  D''DnND;  and  the  one  as- 
assumption  is  undoubtedly  as  reasonable  as  the  other.  It  is  worthy  of 
remark  not  only  that  this  emendation  has  commended  itself  to  no  later 
writer,  but  also  that  the  common  text  is  universally  regarded  as  aflbrding 
a  perfectly  appropriate  sense  and  one  essential  to  the  Prophet's  argument, 
viz.  that  the  makers  of  the  idol  are  themselves  mere  men,  and  cannot  there- 
fore produce  anything  divine.  Yitringa's  explanation  of  CIX  as  meaning 
"common  people"  {plebs)  is  destructive  of  the  argument,  as  well  as  con- 
trary to  usage.  The  comparative  sense  put  by  some  upon  the  phi-ase,  as 
meaning  that  they  are  less  than  men  (Cocceius),  or  that  they  shall  be  ashamed 
more  than  other  men  (Junius),  is  too  unnatural  to  need  refutation.  The 
meaning  of  the  verse  is  that  the  senseless  idol  and  its  human  makers  shall 


166  ISA lA H  X LI]'.  [ Vek.  12,13. 

be  witnesses  aj^ainst  each  other,  and  shall  be  involved  in  the  same  condem- 
nation and  contusion. 

12.   //«  has  carved  iron  (with)  a  graver,  and  has  wrought  (it)  in  the  coals, 
and  with  the  hat)imers  he  will  shape  it,  and  then  work  it  with  his  arm  of 
atrcnfjlh.     Besides  (or  vioreovcr),  he  ii  hungry  and  h<is  no  streni/th,  he  has 
not  drunk  water  (nid  is  faint.     The  construction  of  tl*^n  as  a  verli,  which  is 
given  in  the  Tari^'um,  is  much  the  simplest  and  most  obvious;  lhouf,'h  mos-t 
interpreters  regard  it  as  the  construct  form  of  the  derivative  noun  tinn  a 
workman  (as  in  Exodus  xxviii.  11),  with  ^P?  added  to  restrict  its  applica- 
tion to  a  worker  in  iron,  i.  e.  a  smith  ;  as  D'VJ?  ^"T'C  »»  the  next  verse  is 
supposed  to  sif^uify  a  worlur  in  wood,  i.  e.  a  carpenter.     (Compare  the 
plural  D*VV  'Jr'7'7,  2  Sam.  v.  11.)     Those  who  agree  in  this  explanation  of 
the  first  two  words  diller  as  to  tlieir  construction  with  what  follows.    Apart 
from  Lowth's  gratuitous  emendation  of  the  Masoretic  pointing  by  proposing 
to  read  HVyo  as  a  participle  of  "IVV,  to  cut,  and  the  suggestion  of  Cappellus 
that  it  is  synonymous  with  yi"'?,  the  English  and  some  other  Versions  take 
it  in  the  stnse  of  toug.f,  a  mere  conjecture  from  the  context;  but  most  of  the 
modern  writers   make  it  mean  an  axe,  as  in  Jer.  x.  H,  or  more  generically 
any  shai-p  or  pointed  instrument.     The  noun  thus  explained  is  construed 
with  what  goes  before  in  three  diHerent  ways.     The  olJer  writers  generally 
understand  it  as  a  noun  of  instrument.     Thus  the  English  Version  has  the 
smith  with  the  tongs,  Sec.     Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  others  make  the  noun 
the  object  of  a  verb  to  be  supplied  (the  smith  makes  an  <ue),  and  understand 
the  verse  as  descrihing  the  formation,  not  of  the  idol  itself,  but  of  the  tools 
to  be  employed  in  making  it.     Ewald  and  Knobel  explain  "IVJ^  as  a  second 
term  used  to  qualify  '^'?Q,  or  in  other  words  as  qualit'ying  the  complex  phrase 
before  it.     To  the  whole  expression  Ewald  gives  the  sense  of  an  iron  and 
file  worker,  i.  e.  one  who  works  with   iron  and  the  file  ;  Knol)cl   that  of  a 
tool-smith  or  a  maker  of  edged   tools.     Both   make  this  complex  name  the 
subject  of  the  verb  7yS,  and  the  ^  before  it  an  idiomatic  pleonasm.     Hut  as 
both  these  grammatical  assumptions  are  without  satisfactory  authority  from 
usage,  they  are  only  admissible  in  case  of  exegetical  necessity.     Hitzig  like- 
wise makes  the  first  two  words  the  subject  of  the  verb,  but  Uikes  the  third  as 
its  object,  and  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that  the  smith  converts  an 
axe  into  an  idol,  as  in  chap.  ii.  4  the  sword  becomes  a  ploughshare  and  the 
spear  a  pruning-hook.     Knobel's  objection  that  the  idol  would  be  too  small 
is  of  no  great  moment,  if  it  can  be  assumed  that  images  were  ever  made  of 
iron  ;  but  in  that  case  the  most  satisfactory  construction  is  the  one  first  given, 
which  makes  the  verse  describe  the  proceedings  not  of  the  professional  smith, 
but  of  the  laborious  worshipper  himself.     The  common  version,  strength  of 
his  arms,  is  a  needless  and  enfeebling  transposition.     The  true  sense  of  the 
words   is  his  arm  of  strength.      Vitringa  directs  attention  to  the   beautiful 
parallel  in  Virgil  (Geo.  IV.  170-175),  and  especially  to  this  line  :  illi  inter 
sese   magna  vi  hrachin  tollunt.     The  description  in  the   last  clause   seems 
intended  to  convey  these  several  ideas;  that  the  man  who  undertakes  to  make 
a  god,  is  himself  a  mortal,  subject  to  ordinary  human  infirmities  ;  that  his 
god  is  utterly  unable  to  relieve  him  or  supply  his  wants  ;  and  that  neither 
these  considerations  nor  the  toil  which  he  must  undergo  in  order  to  attain 
bis  end,  are  sufticicnt  to  dettir  him  from  his  self-tormeuting  efforts. 

13.  lie  has  carved  wood,  he  hai  nt retched  a  line,  he  will  mark  if  with  thd 
awl  (or  graver),  hf  will  form  it  with  th/i  chisels,  and  with  tlw  compass  (or 
circle)  he  will  mark  it,  and  thn  make  it  (or  now  he  has  made  it)  like  the 
itructitre  (i.  *.  aftor  tliu  model)  of  a  man,  like  the  beauty  of  mankind,  to 


Ykr.  14.]  ISAIAH  XLIV.  167 

dwell  in  a  house. — In  this  translation  E^!in  is  taken  as  a  verb  and  deferred 
to  the  same  subject  as  in  ver.  12,  i.  e.  the  idol-manufacturer,  who  goes 
through  all  these  lahorious  processes  himself,  in  order  to  produce  a  god. 
But  the  great  majority  of  wi'iters  here  resume  a  transition  from  the  maker 
of  metallic  idols  to  the  maker  of  wooden  ones,  or  from  the  smith  who  makes 
the  carpenter's  tools  to  the  carpenter  himself,  D^Vy  ^'."^n.  the  worker  in  wood. 
— In  this  verse,  aa  in  that  before  it,  the  alternation  of  the  preterite  and 
future  introduces  us  into  the  very  midst  of  the  process,  and  describes  it  as 
already  begun  but  not  yet  finished.  This  distinctive  feature  of  the  passage 
is  destroyed  by  making  all  the  verbs  indiscriminately  present.  The  conver- 
sivo  future  at  the  opening  of  the  second  clause  may  either  denote  simply 
that  the  act  described  is  subsequent  to  that  just  mentioned,  or  it  may  re- 
present what  was  just  now  future  as  already  done,  thereby  rendering  the 
view  of  a  progressive  operation  still  more  vivid.  The  two  markings  or 
delineations  mentioned  are  commonly  supposed  to  have  respect  to  the 
general  dimensions  of  the  figure,  and  then  to  its  precise  form  and  pro- 
portions. Henderson  arbitrarily  translates  the  same  verb  first  he  sketched 
its  figure,  and  then  lie  marked  it  off';  which,  even  if  it  gave  the  sense, 
would  not  convey  the  form  of  the  original. — x^ccording  to  the  rabbins,  "I!)*^ 
means  a  "  red  or  other  coloured  string "  used  by  workmen  in  their 
measurements  (Montanus:  Jilo  tinito).  It  is  applied  to  the  colouring 
substance  by  Luther  [Bothelstein)  and  Lowth  {red  ochre!).  Gesenius  and 
the  other  modern  writers  draw  from  the  Talmudical  and  Arabic  analogy 
the  sense  of  a  sharp  tool  or  graving  instrument. — D!?^?  and  t^'^N  seem  to 
have  their  strict  sense  here,  as  a  generic  and  specific  tenn,  the  beaidy  of 
man,  the  structure  of  a  man.  The  Tai-gum  seems  to  find  a  reference  to 
both  sexes ;  in  support  of  which  some  of  the  old  Jewish  writers  refer  to 
Num.  xxxi.  35,  where  Q"]^  is  applied  to  women  alone.  Jarchi  gains  the 
same  end  in  a  difterent  way,  by  saying  that  the  woman  is  the  glory  of  her 
husband  (r>>];3  P*)'p5p  p'^'O  OD^ofi'^). — Jerome  and  Roseumiillcr  seem  to 
understand  the  last  words  of  the  verse  as  meaning  that  the  idol  has  to  stay 
at  home  because  it  cannot  move.  Gesenius  gives  r\^?  the  specific  sense  of 
temple.  Gill  supposes  a  particular  reference  to  household  gods.  But  the 
meaning  seems  to  be  that  the  idol,  being  like  a  man  in  form,  is,  like  a  man, 
to  dwell  in  a  house. 

14.  To  hew  him  down  cedars;  and  {now)  he  has  tahcn  a  cypress  and  an 
oak — and  has  strengthened  {i.  e.  raised  it) /or  himself  among  the  trees  of  the 
forest — he  has  planted  a  pine,  and  the  rain  shall  increase  (it,  i.e.  make  it 
grow).  To  shew  more  clearly  the  absurdity  of  ascribing  dcitj'  to  material 
images,  he  here  goes  back,  not  only  to  their  human  origin  and  their  base 
material,  but  to  the  very  generation  of  the  trees  by  which  the  wood  is  fur- 
nished. The  particulars  are  stated  in  an  inverse  order.  He  begins  with 
the  felling  of  trees,  but  interrupts  himself  in  order  to  go  still  further  back 
to  their  very  cultivation.  The  essential  idea  is  that  man,  instead  of  being 
the  creature,  is  in  some  sort  the  creator  of  the  wood  he  worships,  since  it 
does  or  may  owe  its  existence  to  his  agency.  The  supposition  just  sug- 
gested of  an  interruption  in  the  syntax  seems  more  natural  than  that  of  a 
grammatical  ellipsis.  Few  intei'preters.  indeed,  would  go  so  far  as  Clericus, 
who  introduces  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence  these  words,  mittit  ad 
Libunum  homines,  and  adds,  with  characteristic  coolness,  hacfiterunt  neces- 
sario  supplenda;  although  in  the  very  next  sentence  he  observes  of  the 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate  Versions,  constmctiones  quam  non  inreniehant  de  .s»o 
concinnarunt.     Ewald,  in  his   larger   Grammar  (p.  G22)  enumerates  this 


168  ISAIAH  XLIV.  [Veb.  15. 

among*the  examples  of  an  infinitive  denoting  necessity  or  obligation,  just  as 
we  might  say  familiarly  in  English,  he  fws  to  cut,  &c.  But  in  his  exposition 
of  the  passage,  he  agi-ees  with  Gesenius  and  others  in  making  it  equivalent 
to  a  finite  verb,  with  the  additional  suggestion  that  it  may  bo  an  ortho- 
graphical mistake  for  JT*?*. — The  modern  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that 
the  njnri  is  a  species  of  oak,  so  called  from  its  hardness,  like  the  Liitiu 
robur.  To  avoid  tautology  and  pedantry,  however,  the  common  version 
cypress  may  be  retained,  as  it  yields  an  appropriate  sense,  and  as  botanical 
precision  is  in  this  case  of  no  exegetical  importance,  since  the  meaning  of 
the  verse  would  be  the  same  whatever  species  had  been  mentioned. — Most 
writers  give  V*?^  the  sense  of  choosing,  designating,  here  and  in  Vs.  Ixxx. 
IG,  which  they  suppose  to  be  easily  deducible  from  that  of  strengthening, 
confining,  fixing.  Ewald  even  goes  so  far  as  to  take  ri^3  in  the  sense  of 
choosing,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  Jer.  x.  3.  This  is  purely  arbitrarv- ; 
and  as  Y^^,  in  every  other  case  where  it  occurs,  admits  of  the  translation 
ttreiitfilifiud,  it  cannot  be  consistently  abandoned  here  without  necessity; 
and  this  necessity  cannot  exist,  because  the  strict  sense  of  making  slronij  is 
not  onlyreleviiut  in  this  connection,  but  corresponds  exactly  to  that  oi  inakiitff 
great  expressed  by  /."^A",  lioth  meaning  here  "  to  cause  to  grow."  Thus 
understood,  the  word  helps  to  bring  out  with  more  strength  and  clearness  the 
main  idea  of  the  verse,  viz.  that  the  idolater  not  only  chooses  suitable  trees, 
but  plants  and  raises  them  for  the  purpose.  It  is  not  uecessar}'  to  suppose 
that  tliis  is  a  description  of  a  usual  or  frequent  custom.  It  is  rather  an 
ideal  exhibition  of  the  idol- manufacture  carried  out  to  its  extreme.  IS  so, 
the  active  subject  of  the  whole  description  is  the  self-deluded  devotee  ; 
which  furnishes  another  reason  for  bclienng  that  the  smith  and  the  car- 
penter are  not  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  two  preceding  verses.  It  also 
removes  the  seeming  incongruity  of  making  the  carpenter  rai.so  his  own 
timber,  whereas  the  same  thing,  when  alleged  of  the  idolater,  is  perfectly  in 
keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  description. — The  object  of  the  verb  y^i<]  may 
be  either  the  trees  previously  mentioned,  or  more  indefinitely,  trees  in 
general.  Lowth  arbitrarily  translates  this  clause,  (tiul  hn/rth  in  (jood  store  of 
the  trees  of  the  furr.st.  Clericus,  still  more  boldly  and  extravagantly,  makes 
it  mean  that  he  furnishes  his  workshop  with  the  trees  of  the  forest.  Less 
absurd,  and  yet  untenable,  because  not  justified  by  usage,  is  Henderson's 
translation,  and  uluit  he  dtnncth  /inn  anium/  the  trees  of  the  forest.  Umbreit's 
suggestion,  that  the  last  clause  was  designed  to  intimate  the  man's  depend- 
ence after  all  upon  the  rain  of  heaven  for  the  very  material  of  which  he 
makes  his  god,  is  not  entirely  natural.  The  clause  is  rather  added  to  com- 
pleti-  the  picture  of  the  natural  origin  and  growth  of  that  which  the  idolater 
adores  as  snperhuman  and  divine.  In  this  as  well  as  the  foregoing  verses 
the  confusion  of  the  tenses  in  most  versions  greatly  mars  the  force  and 
beauty  of  the  Proidiefs  language. — ^Vhat  is  gained  by  the  violent  and  nn- 
granmiatical  construction,  he  has  planted  and  the  rain  has  nourished,  or  the 
vague  and  evasive  one,  he  jdants  and  the  rain  nourishes ;  when  the  exact 
translation,  he  has  planted  and  the  rain  uill  nourish,  is  not  only  just  as 
clear,  coherent,  and  aj)propriate,  but  far  more  graphic  and  expressive,  as  it 
hurries  us  at  once  in  niedias  res,  and  exhibits  the  work  described  as  partly 
past,  partly  future  ?  At  the  same  time  it  implies  the  patient  perseverance 
of  the  devotee,  who  first  docs  his  part  and  then  waits  for  natural  causes  to 
do  theirs,  and  all  for  the  production  of  an  idol ! 

IC.  And  it  shall  le  In  men  for  burning  {i.e.  for  fuel),  and  he  has  takrn  of 
them  and  tiarnied  himself;  yes,  he  uill  kindle  and  hake  bread ;  yes,  he  uill 


Ver.  16.]  ISAIAII  XLIV.  109 

form  a  god  and  fall  prostrate;  lie  has  made  it  a  (/raven  iinafje  and  lowed 
down  to  them.  The  future  mcaniog  of  the  first  verb  is  determined  by  its 
intimate  connection  with  the  hxst  word  of  the  foregoing  verse.  (See  Nord- 
heimer,  §  219.)  Q^^  '^'ci'y  seldom  moans  an  individual  man,  and  seems 
here  to  be  used  indefinitely  for  man  or  men  in  general.  The  singular  verb 
^i?!  does  not  refer  to  this  noun,  but  to  the  worshipper  or  devotee  who  is 
still  the  subject  of  description.  The  plural  form  DHD  is  referred  by  Hitzig 
to  the  trees  of  the  forest  mentioned  in  ver.  14,  by  Knobel  to  the  D^VJ?  or 
sticks  of  wood  into  which  the  tree  must  be  divided.    The  same  explanation 

may  be  given  of  ic<,  although  Ewald  and  Hitzig  maintain  that  this  suffix 
is  employed  as  a  singular  by  later  writers  {e.t/.  chap.  liii.  8;  Ps.  xi.  7).  But 
even  admitting  the  existence  of  this  usage,  which  Gesenius  utterly  denies, 
the  strict  and  usual  meaning  is  to  be  retained  where  possible,  and  therefore 
here,  where  the  Prophet  seems  designedly  to  interchange  the  singular  and 
plural  forms,  in  order  to  identify  with  more  efiect  the  idol  worshipped  and 
the  sticks  consumed.  He  takes  of  them  (the  sticks),  kindles  a  fire,  warms 
himself,  bakes  bread,  then  makes  a  god,  and  worships,  yes,  bows  down 
before  them  (the  sticks  of  wood).  The  argument  of  this  and  the  succeeding 
verses  is  intended  to  exhibit  the  absurdity  of  worshipping  the  same  material 
that  is  constantly  applied  to  the  most  trivial  domestic  uses.  All  the  inter- 
preters since  Calvin  quole  the  striking  parallel  from  Horace  (Sat.  i.  8). 

Oh'm  truncus  eram  ficuhius,  inutile  lignum  ; 
Quum  faber,  incortus  scamuuin  faceretue  Priapura, 
Maluit  esse  Deuin. 

IG.  Half  of  it  he  hatli  burned  in  the  fire,  on  half  of  it  he  uill  eat  flesh, 
he  will  roast  roast  and  he  filled ;  yea,  he  will  uarm  himself  and  say,  Aha, 
I  am  warm,  I  have  seen  fire.  Both  etymology  and  usage  give  'VD  the  sense 
of  half,  i.e.  one  of  two  parts  into  which  a  given  whole  may  be  divided, 
whether  equal  or  unequal.  The  indefinite  translation  part,  given  in  all  the 
English  versions  except  that  of  Noyes.  is  intended  to  avoid  the  incongruity 
of  making  two  halves  and  a  remainder.  But  this  incongruity,  although 
justly  chargeable  on  Umbroit's  version,  which  distinctly  mentions  tlw  one 
half,  the  other  half,  and  the  remainder,  has  no  existence  in  the  original ; 
because,  as  all  the  other  modern  writers  are  agreed,  the  first  and  second 
I^VD  of  ver.  16  are  one  and  the  same  half,  and  the  other  is  not  introduced 
until  the  next  verse.  Henderson  indeed  refers  the  second  to  the  wooden 
dish  or  platter  upon  which  the  meat  was  literally  eaten.  But  this  disturbs 
the  parallel  between  the  two  main  uses  of  the  wood,  as  fuel  and  a  god, 
which  is  so  distinctly  carried  out  in  the  preceding  and  the  following  context. 
It  is  better,  therefore,  to  explain  the  phrase,  on  half  of  it  he  eats  fiesh,  as  a 
pregnant  or  concise  expression  of  the  idea,  that  over  or  by  means  of  the  fire 
made  with  half  of  it  he  cooks  flesh  for  his  eating.  The  obscurity  of  this 
clause  is  immediately  removed  by  the  addition  of  the  unambiguous  words, 
he  roasts  a  roast  and  satisfies  himself  The  force  of  ^>?,  lioth  here  and  in 
the  foregoing  verse,  appears  to  be  ecpiivalent  to  that  of  our  expression  nay 
more,  not  only  this,  but  also,  or  moreover. — Gesenius  and  others  give 
'O'NT  in  the  last  clause  the  generic  sense  oiperceiviny  by  the  senses ;  Hitzig 
the  more  specific  one  of  feeliny,  in  support  of  which  he  quotes  the  obser- 
vation of  Schelling,  that  the  skin  is  the  eye  for  warmth,  whereupon  Hende- 
werk  no  less  characteristically  says  that  the  Prophet  may  with  more 
probability  be  supposed  to  have  ascribed  these  words  to  the  idolater  in  the 


170  ISA  I  All  XLIV.  Ver.  17-19. 

sense  of  an  ancient  fire-worshipper  than  in  that  of  a  niDtk-rn  pantheist. 
The  truth  is,  that  the  Ilehrew  verb  not  only  luav,  hut  must  have  here  its 
proper  meaning  /  h'lre  seen,  because  the  noun  which  follows  does  not  de- 
note the  heat  of  fire,  but  its  liijht,  and  there  could  not  bo  a  more  natural 
expression  of  the  feeling  meant  to  be  conveyed  than  by  rcftrrin;,'  to  the 
cheerful  blaze  of  a  largo  wood  fire.  To  thu  indiscriminate  Iransilation  of 
the  verbs  Itoth  in  this  verse  and  the  next  as  descriptive  presents,  the  same 
objections  may  be  made  as  in  the  foregoing  context. 

17.  Ami  (lie  rest  of  it  {i.e.  the  other  half)  lie  has  vtmle  into  a  tjtnl,  into 
his  graven  imaije;  he  will  buir  down  to  it,  and  in"//  uurship,  and  nill  pray  to 
it,  and  say.  Deliver  me,  for  thou  (nrt)  tny  yod.  The  consecution  of  the  tenses 
is  the  same  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  has  the  same  effect  of  fixing  the 
point  of  observation  in  the  midst  of  the  process.  He  has  kindled  his  fire, 
and  will  use  it  to  prepare  his  food.  He  has  made  his  idol,  and  will  fall 
down  and  pray  to  it.  The  pronoun  at  the  end  may  be  regarded  as  empha- 
tic, and  as  meaning  tlmu  and  thou  alone. 

18.  They  have  not  Icnonn,  and  they  iviil  not  understand,  for  he  hath 
smeared  their  eyes  f mm  seeiny,  their  hearts  from  doiny  uisely.  The  combina- 
tion of  the  preterite  and  future  makes  the  description  more  complete  and 
comprehensive.  Some  give  '?  the  sense  of  that,  and  make  it  indicate  the 
object  of  their  ignorance  and  inconsideration.  Junius  and  Tremellius,  who 
adopt  this  construction,  refer  HO  to  the  idol ;  thej-  do  not  know  that  it  has 
blinded  them.  The  Septuagint  explains  the  verb  as  a  passive  plural,  and 
Gesenius  has  the  same  form  in  his  version  {their  eyes  are  smeared),  which 
he  resolves,  however,  into  an  indefinite  construction  (one  has  smeared  their 
eyes).  But  the  analogy  of  chaps,  vi.  10,  xxix.  10,  Job  xvii.  4,  confirms  Aben 
Ezra's  statement,  that  Jehovah  is  the  agent  or  subject  (Df^r  r>r  5:;^^r^. 
As  the  smearing  of  the  eyes  is  merely  a  figure  for  spiritual  blindness,  it 
is  here  extended  to  the  heart,  of  which  it  is  not  literally  predicable. 
As  the  uso  of  the  Hiphil  form  in  any  but  an  active  sense  is  called  in  ques- 
tion by  some  eminent  grammarians,  ?*?^'!l  may  here,  as  in  some  other  cases, 
have  the  sense  of  nrtiny  wisely. 

19.  And  he  will  not  briny  it  home  to  himself  {or  to  his  heart),  and  {there 
is)  not  knnwledye,  and  {there  is)  not  understandiny  to  say,  Half  of  it  I  hare 
burned  in  the  fire,  and  have  also  baked  bread  on  its  coals,  I  will  roast  flesh 
and  eat,  and  the  rest  of  it  I  will  make  to  (be)  an  altomination,  to  a  hy  of  wood 
(or  the  trunk  nf  a  tree)  I  will  cast  myself  doton.  The  essential  meaning  is, 
that  they  have  not  sense  enough  to  describe  their  conduct  U^  themselves  in 
its  true  colours  ;  if  they  did,  they  would  stand  amazed  at  its  impietj*  and 
folly.  In  the  form  of  expression  the  writer  passes  from  the  plural  to  the 
singular,  i.e.  from  idohiU'rs  in  general  to  the  individual  idolater. — The  first 
phrase  does  not  corresj)ond  exactly  to  the  English  lay  to  hrail,  but  com- 
prehends rellection  an<l  emotion.  The  construction  of  the  lust  clause  as  an 
explanation  or  an  interrogation  has  arisen  from  a  wish  to  avoid  the  incon- 
gruity of  making  the  m;ui  call  himself  a  fool,  or  express  his  resolution  to 
perform  a  foolish  act.  liut  this  very  incongruity  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  writer's  purpose,  which  is  simply  to  tell  what  the  infatuated  devotee 
would  say  of  his  own  conduct  if  ho  saw  it  in  its  true  light.  Instead  of 
saying,  I  M(i"  worship  my  god.  he  would  then  say,  I  will  worship  a  stick  of 
wood,  a  part  of  the  very  log  wbidi  I  have  just  burnc<l,  upon  which  I  have 
just  baked  my  bread,  and  on  which  I  am  just  about  to  cook  my  dinner. 
Tlio  more  revolting  and  al>surd  this  language,  the  more  completely  does  it 
suit  uud  carry  out  the  writer's  purpose.     Hence,  too,  the  uso  of  the  term 


Ver.  20,  21.]  ISAIAH  XLIV.  171 

ahouniKtiioii,  i.e.  object  of  abborreuce,  not  in  tbe  worshipper's  actual  belief, 
but  as  it  would  be  if  bis  eyes  were  opened. 

20.  Feeding  on  ashes,  (fiis)  heart  is  deceived,  it  has  led  him  asfrat/,  and  /le 
cannot  delirer  himself  {or  his  soul),  and  he  will  not  say,  Is  there  not  a  lie  in 
my  right  hand/  Another  statement  of  the  reason  why  he  cannot  sec  his 
conduct  in  its  just  lij^ht,  or  describe  it  in  correct  terms,  viz.,  because  his 
very  mind  or  heart  is  deceived,  and  this  because  it  feeds  on  ashes.  This 
last  expression  is  strangely  understood  by  some  interpreters,  following  the 
Targum,  to  describe  the  idol  as  a  piece  of  half-burnt  wood  ;  and  even  Um- 
breit  seems  to  recognise  such  an  allusion  in  the  sentence.  15ut  the  great 
majority  of  writers,  far  more  naturally,  make  it  a  figure  for  the  love  and 
prosecution  of  uusatisfj'ing  objects,  analogous  to  feedinff  on  wind,  Hos.  xii.  2. 
Gesenius  in  his  Commentary  says,  that  the  translation /m/tV/<  on  aahes  is 
in  no  case  appropriate  {in  keinem  Falle  jyassend).  He  accordingly  trans- 
lates it  there  sectatur  cinerem  ;  but  in  his  Thesaurus  he  abandons  this 
gratuitous  multiplication  of  senses,  and  explains  it  as  a  figurative  application 
of  the  common  meaning,  "  pasci  aliqua  re,  metaph.  i.  q.  delectari  re."  The 
word,  however,  denotes  something  more  than  simply  to  take  pleasure  in  an 
object,  and  suggests  the  idea  of  choosing  it  and  resting  in  it  as  a  portion. — 
The  usual  comU-uction  of  the  next  words,  a  deccivel  heart  has  seduced  him, 
is  commonly  explained  by  assuming  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative,  {his)  heart 
{irhich)  is  deceived  has  seduced  him.  But  the  simplest  and  most  natural 
construction  is  the  one  proposed  by  Knobel,  who  makes  two  short  indepen- 
dent clauses,  the  heart  is  deceived,  it  leads  him  astray.  The  futures  of  the 
last  clause  have  in  part,  if  not  exclusively,  a  potential  meaning.  It  is  best, 
perhaps,  to  combine  the  ideas  of  unwillingness  and  inability. — The  conclud- 
ing question  is  equivalent  in  import  to  the  long  speech  put  into  the  mouth 
of  the  idolater  in  ver.  19.  By  a  lie  we  are  to  understand  that  which  pro- 
fesses to  be  what  it  is  not,  and  thereby  deceives  the  hopes  of  those  who  trust 
in  it.  (See  Jer.  x.  14  ;  Ps.  xxxiii.  i7.)  This  description  some  apply  to 
the  idol  itself,  as  if  he  had  said.  Is  not  this  which  I  carry  in  my  right  hand 
a  deception  ?  But  as  this  makes  a  part  of  the  interrogation  literal  and  a 
part  metaphorical,  most  writers  give  it  uniformity  by  understanding  all  the 
terms  as  figurative  :  Is  not  this,  about  which  I  am  busied,  and  upon  which 
I  am  spending  strength  and  bilinur,  a  deception  ?  To  any  one  rational  enough 
to  ask  the  question,  the  reply  would  be  affirmative  of  course. 

21.  liemember  these  {things).  Jacob  and  Israel,  for  thou  art  my  servant  ; 
I  hav:'  formed  thee,  a  servant  unto  mc  art  thou;  Israel,  thou  shall  not  be 
forgotten  by  me.  Having  completed  his  detailed  exposure  of  the  folly  of 
idolatry,  or  rather  of  the  impotence  of  iJols,  as  contrasted  with  the  po\yer 
of  God,  he  now  resumes  the  tone  of  promise  and  encouragement  with  which 
the  chapter  opens,  and  assm-cs  the  chosen  people,  here  personified  as  Israel 
or  Jacob,  tly  tliiaving  been  constituted  such  by  Jehovali  for  a  special  pur- 
pose, thf  a,.vouid  not  cease  to  be  the  objects  of  his  watchful  cai-e. — These 
things  may  possibly  refer  to  the  immediately  succeeding  statements,  which 
may  then  be  rendered  that  thou  art  my  servant.  Sec.  To  most  interpreters, 
however,  it  has  seemed  more  natural  to  understand  by  these  things  the 
whole  foregoing  series  of  arguments  against  the  divinity  of  idols  and  in 
favour  of  Jehovah's  sole  supremacy. — Ewald  connects  V""'?^  ^^ith  the  pre- 
ceding verb,  so  as  to  mean,  I  have  formed  thee  as  a  servant  for  myself. 
The  only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  construction  is  the  nriS,  which  cannot 
be  the  object  of  the  verb,  but  must  agree  with  one  expressed  or  understood. 
This  objection  might  be  done  away  by  disregarding  the  Masoretic  inter- 


172  ISA  I A  U  XL  IV.  (  Veb.  22,  23. 

punction,  and  Irausforring  the  disjunctive  accent  to  the  preceding  word  ;  iu 
which  case  the  latter  member  of  the  clause  would  read,  thou  Israel,  kc, 
with  an  emphasis  upon  the  pronoun.  This  construction  has  the  advantage 
of  reuioviiig  the  apparent  tautology-  arising  from  the  repetitiDii  of  thuu  art 
v\y  senaitt,  which  is  more  observable  in  most  translations  than  in  the  ori- 
ginal, where  two  ditierent  forms  of  exjiression  are  employed. — The  last  word 
in  the  verse  is  explained  in  the  ancient  versions,  and  by  some  modem 
writers,  as  a  deponent  verb,  thou  shall  not  J'ortjet  me.  But  Gesenius  ami 
Ewald,  with  greater  probability,  make  it  a  proper  passive,  and  explain  the 
suffix  as  equivalent  to  a  dative  or  an  ablative  in  Latin  thou  shnlt  not  he  for- 
gotten (by)  we ;  which  is  much  more  appropriate,  in  this  connection,  th:in 
an  exhortation  not  to  forget  God.  This  construction  is  as  old  as  Aben  Ezra, 
who  paraphrases  the  expression  thus  :  T73/f)  'JJfi^  '^7^/  '^Df  ^Z)'?  ^3. 

22.  /  hare  blotted  out,  like  a  cloud,  thy  tramgressiom,  and  like  a  vapour, 
thy  sins  ;  return  to  me,  for  I  have  redeemed  thee.  As  the  prt'^vious  assur- 
ances were  suited  to  dispel  any  doubt  or  hesitation  as  to  the  power  of 
Jehovah,  so  the  one  in  this  verso  meets  another  difficulty,  namely,  that 
arising  from  a  sense  of  guilt.  The  assurance  given  is  that  of  entire  and 
gratuitous  forgiveness.  The  analogy  of  Exod.  xxxii.  32,  38,  would  seem  to 
favour  an  allusion  to  the  blotting  out  of  an  inscription  or  an  entry  in  a  book 
of  accounts.  The  cluud  may  then  be  a  distinct  figure  to  denote  what  is 
transient  or  evanescent.  (See  Hos.  vi.  4,  xiii.  3  ;  Job.  vii.  9,  xxx.  15.) 
This  is  Hitzig's  explanation  of  the  verse  ;  but  most  inteq)reters  suppose  the 
blotting  and  the  cloud  to  be  parts  of  one  and  the  same  metaphor,  although 
they  diti'er  iu  their  method  of  connecting  them.  Junius  strangely  imder- 
stauds  the  clause  to  mean,  as  a  cloud  (when  condensed  into  rain)  purges 
away  filth.  The  great  majority  of  writers  are  agreed,  however,  that  the 
cloud  itself  is  here  described  as  being  blotted  out.  Gill  supposes  an  allu- 
sion to  the  height  and  distance  of  the  clouds  as  being  far  beyond  man's  reach, 
implying  that  forgiveness  is  a  divine  prerogative.  Heudewerk  sees  a  forced 
allusion  to  the  cloud  which  went  before  the  people  in  the  wilderness.  A 
more  usual  and  natural  interpretation  is  that  the  clouds  in  general  are  hero 
considered  as  intervening  between  heaven  and  earth,  as  sin  is  expressly  said 
iu  chap.  lix.  2,  to  sei)arate  between  God  and  his  people.  This  explanation 
of  the  metaphor,  however,  does  not  exclude  the  supposition  of  a  reference 
to  the  fleeting  nature  of  the  cloudy  vapour,  and  the  ease  and  suddenness 
with  which  it  is  dispelled  by  sun  or  wind. — 3iJ  and  |3JJ  are  poetical  equiva- 
lents. So  far  as  they  can  be  distinguished,  either  in  etymology  or  usage, 
the  correct  distinction  is  the  one  expressed  in  the  English  Version  {thiek 
cloud  and  cloud),  which  Henderson  reverses. — lieturn  unto  vie  is  a  phrase 
descriptive  of  all  the  restorations  of  God's  people  from  their  spiritual 
wanderings  and  estrangements.  The  restriction  of  this  phrase,  and  the 
one  which  follows  it  to  the  restoratittn  of  the  Jews  from  exj.jst'.''  as  forced 
and  arbitrary  as  the  future  form  given  to  the  verb  in  nu;ny  ve.>i  (fj. 

2;{.  Siny,  O  heavens,  for  Jehovah  hath  done  {it);  shout,  ye  lower  parts  of 
the  earth;  break  forth,  ye  mountains,  into  sony,  the  forest  and  every  tree  in 
it :  for  Jehovah  hath  redeemed  Jacob,  and  in  Israel  he  trill  ylorify  himself. 
The  prediction  of  glorious  and  joyful  changes,  as  in  many  other  ca.ses,  is 
clothed  in  the  form  of  an  exhortation  to  all  nature  to  rejoioi'.  It  is  essen- 
tial to  the  writer's  purpose  that  the  universe  itself  should  be  a<ldressod, 
which  i)reclude8  the  explanation  of  the  verso  by  Grotius,  as  addressed  to 
angels,  kings,  and  common  men  ;  or  by  Vitringa,  as  addressed  to  the 
apostles  ami   prophets  (from  a  misplaced  comparison  of  Kev.  xviii.  20). 


Ver.  24,  25.]  ISAIAH  XLIV.  178 

Equally  inconsistent  with  his  purpose  and  at  variance  with  good  taste  is 
the  explanation  of  mountains  as  meaning  kingdoms,  forests,  cities.  Sec. — 
The  thing  done  is  what  is  mentioned  in  the  last  clause,  ?'.  e.  the  redemption 
of  Israel,  including  the  deliverance  from  exile  in  Babj-lon,  but  not  contined 
to  at. — The  arbitrary-  version  of  the  tv.o  verbs  in  the  last  clause  as  a  pre- 
terite and  present,  or  a  present  and  a  future,  is  in  no  respect  to  be  preferred 
to  the  exact  translation  as  a  preterite  and  a  future,  expressive  of  what  God 
had  done  and  would  yet  do  for  the  chosen  people. 

21.  Thus  saifh  Jehorah,  thy  Redeemer,  and  thy  Former  from  the  icomh,  I, 
Jehovah,  maldng  all,  strrtchiiiy  the  heavens  alone,  upreadiny  the  earth  ly  my- 
nelf  (or,  icho  was  tcith  meY).  Some  refer  thus  saith  to  the  preceding 
promises,  and  take  all  that  follows  till  the  end  of  the  chapter  as  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  being  who  uttered  them.  Others  refer  thus  saith  to  what 
follows,  supply  the  verb  am  before  Jehorah,  and  regard  the  last  clause  of 
the  verse  as  the  divine  declaration.  A  third  conceivable  construction  would 
restrict  it  to  the  closing  question,  %vho  [is)  uith  me  1  i.  e.  who  can  claim 
equality  or  likeness  with  me  ? — There  is  no  need  of  gi^^ng  to  the  phrase 
tJuj  Former  a  moral  sense,  as  signifying  the  formation  of  character  or 
manners,  as  the  words  from  the  ivonth  arc  not  necessarily  exclusive  of  the 
period  before  birth.  For  the  meaning  of  the  figure  itself,  see  above  on 
vcr.  2 ;  for  that  of  VyT^  on  chap.  xlii.  5. — The  textual  reading  of  the  last 
word  makes  it  an  interrogation,  '''!^^  ^P,  tvho  (is  or  tvas)  xoith  me  ?  imphnng 
strong  negation,  and  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  affirmation,  thm-  kus  no 
one  uith  me.  The  marginal  reading  yields  the  same  sense  in  another  way, 
'Jlli^P,  from,  hy,  or  of  myself.  (Compare  *3^P,  Hosea  viii.  4,  and  drr' 
sfiavTou,  John  v.  30.)  The  objection  that  the  textual  reading  interrupts 
the  construction  is  valid  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  sentence  is  con- 
tinued through  the  following  verses.  If,  as  most  interpreters  assume,  the 
last  clause  of  this  verse  contains  a  proposition,  interrogative  or  affirmative, 
this  reading  afibrds  an  appropriate  conclusion  to  the  sentence,  and  a 
striking  parallel  to  the  phrase  '''!I?<  in  the  other  clause. 

25.  Jirea/ciny  the  siyns  of  halhlers,  and  diviners  he  will  madden  ;  turning 
sages  back,  and  their  knowledge  he  trill  stultify.  The  whole  verse  is  de- 
scriptive of  Jehovah  as  convicting  all  prophets,  except  his  own,  of  folly 
and  imposture,  by  falsifying  their  prognostications.  D'''n2  is  commonly 
translated  either  lies  or  liars;  but  it  is  rather  an  expression  of  contempt, 
denoting  praters,  vain  or  idle  talkers,  and  by  implication  utterers  of  false- 
hood. Signs  are  properly  the  pledges  and  accompaniments  of  predictions, 
but  may  here  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  prophecy  itself.  These  are  said 
to  be  hroken  in  the  same  sense  that  breaking  may  be  predicated  of  a  pro- 
mise or  a  covenant.  The  efiect  of  course  would  be  to  make  such  prophets 
seem  like  fools  or  madmen.  (See  2  Sam.  xv.  81  ;  Hos.  ix.  7.)  The 
restriction  of  these  terms  to  the  false  prophets  of  the  Babylonish  exile  is 
not  only  arbitrary,  but  at  variance  with  the  context,  which  repeatedly  con- 
trasts the  omnipotence  and  omniscience  of  Jehovah  with  the  impotence  of 
idols  aud  the  ignorance  of  heathen  prophets. — Because  turning  back  and 
being  put  to  shame  are  often  joined  together  elsewhere,  Gesenius,  accord- 
ing to  his  favourite  method,  makes  them  simply  synonymous ;  whereas  the 
first  expression  strictly  signifies  defeat,  disappointment,  failure,  with  which 
shame  is  naturally  connected,  but  surely  not  identical. — The  alternation  of 
the  future  and  participle  seems  to  have  a  rhythmical  design.  The  distinc- 
tion may  however  be,  that  while  the  latter  signifies  habitual  or  customary 
action,  the  former  expresses  certain  futurity  and  fixed  determination. 


174  ISALin  XLTV.  [Ver.  20,  27. 

26.  Confirming  the  tcord  of  his  xrnanf,  and  the  conufirl  of  hi*  nnsHengers 
he  uiU  fulfil ;  fhf  {one)  fiai/ing  to  (or  ax  to)  Jenisnlrm,  She  shall  he  inhabited, 
and  to  (or  as  to)  the  eifies  ofJudah,  They  .shall  he  hidlf,  and  her  mint  1  ivill 
raise.  With  the  frustriition  of  the  hcathcu  prophecies  is  hero  contrasted 
the  fulfilment  of  Jehovah's,  who  is  himself  representetl  as  securing  their 
accomplishment.  D*i?n  has  hire  the  Fame  sense  as  in  Jer.  xxix.  10, 
xxxiii.  14,  viz.  that  of  bringing  a  promise  or  prophecy  to  pass. — By  his 
servant  Jarchi  understands  Moses,  Hitzig  Jeremiah,  Geseuius  the  prophets 
as  a  class,  Knobel  the  genuine  believing  Israel  whose  hopes  were  embodied 
in  these  prophecies.  Simpler  and  more  salisfacton-  than  either  of  these 
explanations  is  that  which  sujiposes  his  servajit  to  be  primarily  and  directly 
the  writer  himself,  but  considered  as  one  of  a  class  who  are  then  distinctly 
mentioned  in  the  other  member  as  hismefseni/ers.  The  specific  applic:ition 
of  the  title  of  God's  senant  to  the  prophets  is  apparent  from  2  Kings 
xxiv.  2  ;  Jer.  xxix.  19,  xxxv.  15,  xliv.  4. — Gill's  quef^tion,  why  his  feirant 
may  not  denote  Paul  as  Cocceius  supposes,  is  unanswerable. — Counsel, 
according  to  Henderson,  here-  means  the  counsel  or  piii-j)ose  of  God,  as 
declared  bv  his  servants.  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers  make  it  a 
descriptionof  prophecy,  considered  as  involving  or  suggesting  counsel  and 
advice  with  respect  to  the  future.  (Compare  the  similar  application  of  the. 
verb  in  chap.  xli.  28.) — The  ln.st  clause,  bej.'inriing  with  the  word  19^■^l, 
might  be  considered  as  a  more  specific  designation  or  description  of  his 
servant,  viz.  (he  (servant)  saying,  Sec.  But  this  interpretation  is  precluded 
by  the  double  repetition  of  ">5t*'7  in  the  two  succeeding  verses,  and  in  evi- 
dent application  to  Jehovah  himself. — The  construction  of  3t'-in  as  a  verb 
of  the  second  person  (thou  shall  le  inhabited)  is  forbidden  by  its  masculine 
form,  which  could  be  connected  with  the  name  Jerusalem  only  in  cases 
where  the  latter  is  put  for  its  inhabitants.  For  the  sake  of  uniformity  the 
parallel  expression  is  to  be  translated  in  like  manner.  Gesenius  arbitrarily 
translates  the  first  of  these  verbs  as  an  imperative,  the  second  as  a  future, 
and  the  thiid  as  a  present.  To  raise  up  the  ruins  of  a  city  is  of  course  to 
rebuild  it. 

27.  The  {one)  saying  to  the  deep.  Be  dry,  and  I  will  dry  uj)  thy  foods  (or 

streams).  The  Targum,  followed  by  Kimchi  and  others,  explains  nSlV  as  a 
metaphorical  description  of  Babylon,  so  called  on  account  of  its  wealth, 
its  population,  or  its  site.  Yitringa,  Lowth,  and  some  of  the  latest 
writers,  understand  by  n^-IV  the  Euphrates,  and  apply  the  whole  verse  to 
the  stratagem  by  which  Cynis  garned  access  to  liabylun,  as  related  in  the 
first  book  of  Herodotus,  and  the  seventh  of  Xenophon's  Cyrojwdia. 
Henderson  thinks  there  may  be  also  an  allusion  to  his  division  of 
the  river  Gyndes.  (Sec  vol.  i.  p.  2G2.)  Ewald  and  others  understand 
the  verse  as  a  description  of  God's  power  over  nature  and  the  elements, 
with  or  without  an  allusion  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  at  the  exodus. 
This  exposition  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  analogv'  of  chap.  xlii.  15, 
xliii.  10,  1.  2,  li.  10.  That  of  Jer.  1.  88,  li.  80,  does  not  prove  that 
Isaiah's  description  was  designed  to  have  exclusive  reference  to  the  con- 
quest of  Babylon  by  Cyrus,  but  oidy  that  this  was  included  in  it  as  a 
signal  instance  of  (iod's  power  to  overcome  all  obstacles,  and  that  the 
later  prophet  made  a  specific  application  of  the  words  accordingly. 
There  is  no  need  of  giving  n'?'IV  any  other  than  its  widist  sense  as  a 
description  of  the  ocean.  The  word  striains  or  ft(X(ls  is  applied  in  the 
same  way  to  the  sea  by  David  (Pb.  xiiv.  2)  and  Jonah  (ii.  4),  in  the 


Yer.  28.]  ISAIAH  XLIV.  175 

last  of  whicli  cases  it  is  connected  with  the  cognate  form  n"?')Vp.  (Com- 
pare Zecli.  X.  11,  and  Isa.  xix.  5.) — The  strict  translation  of  the  last 
verb  by  Ewald  as  a  future  (/  loill  dry  up)  is  not  only  more  exact,  but 
more  expressive  than  the  present  f(jrm  preferred  by  Gesenius  and  others. 

28.  The  (one)  fiaijiv;/  to  (or  as  to)  Cyrus,  My  sliepheni,  and  all  my  plea- 
sure he  v:ill  fuljil,  and  sayiny  to  Jerusalem,  Thou  shall  be  built,  and  (to)  the 
temple,  Thou  shall  be  founded.  It  is  now  universally  admitted  that  this 
verse  has  reference  to  Cyrus  the  Elder  or  the  Great,  the  son  of  Cambyses 
king  of  Persia,  and  the  grandson  of  Astyagcs  the  Mcde,  the  hero  of  the 
Cyropajdia  and  of  the  first  book  of  Herodotus,  the  same  who  appears  in 
sacred  history  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  23,  Ezra  i.  1)  as  the  actual  restorer  of  the 
Jews  from  exile.  He  is  here  called  Jehovah's  shejdwrd,  which  may  either 
be  the  usual  poetical  designation  of  a  king,  so  common  in  the  oldest  classics, 
or  (as  Umbreit  suggests)  a  special  description  of  his  mission  and  vocation 
to  gather  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.  It  is  characteristic  of  John 
David  Michaelis,  and  of  the  notions  prevalent  in  his  day  as  to  fidelity  and 
freedom  of  translation,  that  instead  of  my  slwpherd  he  has  the  kiny  ajijmintcd 
by  me  ;  for  which  variation  he  apologises  on  the  ground  that  the  former 
title,  if  applied  to  so  great  a  king,  might  sound  indecorous  {iinanstandiy 
klinyen),  because  shepherds  are  now  low  and  vulgar  people. — With  *jn  we 
may  either  supply  thou  art  or  he  is,  or  regard  it  as  a  simple  exclamation. 
A  curious  illustration  of  the  ancient  mode  of  writing  Hebrew  is  aflbrded  by 
Jerome's  remark  on  this  word :  "  Verbum  Hebraicum  Eoi,  si  per  resh  literam 
legamus,  intelligitur  j)astor  mens  ;  si  per  dalcth,  sciens  vel  intelliycns  ; 
quarum  similitudo  parvo  apice  distinguitur." — All  my  pleasure,  i.  e.  with 
respect  to  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  exile. — The  construction  of 

"lbN7l.  is  obscure  and  difficult.  Luther  refers  it  to  an  indefinite  subject,  so 
that  one  may  say  {dass  man  sage).  Knobel  makes  it  dependent  on  ipV^H  in 
the  sense  of  commandiny  to  say.  Ewald  regards  it  as  an  idiomatic  use  of 
the  infinitive  instead  of  the  finite  verb,  and  refers  it  to  Jehovah.  Gesenius 
refers  it  to  Cyrus,  and  understands  it  as  explaining  how  he  was  to  fulfil 
Jehovah's  pleasure,  namely,  by  sayiiiy,  &c.  This,  on  the  whole,  is  the 
most  natural  construction,  although,  like  the  others,  it  leaves  unexplained 
the  introduction  of  the  copulative  particle  before  the  verb,  which  must 
either  be  rendered  as  in  the  English  Version  (even  sayiny),  or  disregarded  as 
an  idiomatic  pleonasm. — The  same  ambiguity  respecting  the  person  of  the 
verbs  exists  in  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  as  in  ver  26.  Some  take  both 
in  the  second  person,  which  requires  a  preposition  to  be  introduced  before 

'??"'n.  Others  make  both  in  the  third  person,  which  requires  ^3\T  to  be 
construed  as  a  feminine  in  this  one  place  exclusively.  This  last  is  the 
construction  finally  adopted  by  Gesenius.  In  his  Commentary  he  had 
assumed  an  abrupt  transition  from  the  third  to  the  second  person. — There 
are  two  points  in  this  verse  upon  which  the  higher  criticism  of  modern 
times  has  fastened,  as  proofs  that  the  passage  is  of  later  origin  than  that 
which  tradition  has  assigned  to  it.  The  first  of  those  is  the  use  of  )*?n  in 
the  sense  of  business  or  ati'air,  repeated  instances  of  which  are  cited  from 
the  later  books  or  what  are  so  considered.  But  even  in  the  cases  thus 
alleged,  the  change  of  usage  is  extremely  doubtful,  while  in  that  before  us 
it  is  purely  imaginary  or  fictitious.  The  word  has  here  its  strict,  original, 
and  usual  sense  of  inclination,  will,  or  pleasure,  that  which  one  delights  in, 
chooses,  or  desires  ;  and  the  substitution  of  ajair  or  business  would  be  not 
only  arbitrary  but  ridiculous. — The  other  supposititious  proof  of  later  date  is 


17G  ISAIAH  XLIV.  [Veh.  28. 

the  distinctness  with  which  Cyrus  is  foretold  by  name,  and  which  is  said 
to  be  at  variance  with  the  general  analogy  and  usage  of  the  prophecies. 
Mijller's  attempt  to  set  aside  this  difficulty  by  explaining  tnia  as  a  descrip- 
tive name  of  Israel  itself,  has  found  no  adherents  among  later  writers,  and 
inste;id  of  mitigating,  aggravates  the  evil.  Without  disturbing  the  unani- 
mous consent  among  interpreters  that  Cyrus  is  the  subject  of  this  prophecy, 
the  objection  admits  of  satisfactory  solution.  In  the  first  place,  let  it  bo 
observed,  that  it  proceeds  upon  a  false  assumption,  namely,  that  no  form 
of  expression  or  prediction  can  occur  but  once.  Why  may  not  this  be  a 
single  exception  to  the  general  rule,  analogous  to  that  presented  by  the 
occasional  introduction  of  precise  dates,  notwithstanding  the  usual  vague- 
ness of  prediction  ?  The  want  of  analogy  might  render  it  a  priori  more 
improbable,  and  make  the  necessity  of  clear  proof  more  imperative,  but 
could  not,  in  the  face  of  such  proof,  make  the  fact  itself  incredible.  But 
in  the  next  place,  the  precision  of  this  prophecy  is  not  so  totally  without 
analogy  as  the  objectors  commonly  assume.  One  clearly  defined  instance 
of  the  same  kind  is  sufficient  to  relieve  the  case  before  us  from  the  charge 
of  being  wholly  unparalleled,  and  such  an  instance  is  afi'orded  by  the  pro- 
phecy respecting  Josiah  in  1  Ivings  xiii,  2.  The  assertion  that  the  name 
of  Josiah  was  interpolated  bj'  a  later  hand,  is  not  only  perfectly  gratuitous, 
but  equally  available  in  this  case,  where  a  similar  assumption  would  at  once 
remove  all  evidence  of  later  date.  If  that  is  an  interpolation,  so  may  this 
be.  If  that  is  not  one,  this  is  not  without  analogy.  But  in  the  third 
place,  the  alleged  violation  of  analogy  is  much  less  real  than  apparent ; 
since  in  both  the  cases  there  is  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  name  as  a 
generic  or  descriptive  title,  and  not  merely  to  its  application  as  an  indi- 
vidual denomination.  That  Josiah  was  intended  to  be  thus  significant,  as 
well  as  in  2  Ivings  xiii.  2,  as  in  Zech.  vi.  10,  has  been  proved  by  Hcng- 
st<3nl)erg  in  his  exposition  of  the  latter  passage.  (Christologie,  ii.  p.  71.) 
That  ^'^13  was  likewise  a  descriptive  title  of  the  Persian  kings,  is  rendered 
probable  by  several  distinct  considerations.  The  Hebrew  name  has  been 
identified,  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  comparative  philologists,  with  a 
Persian  word  which  means  the  sun.  The  use  of  such  a  title  would  agree 
well  not  only  with  the  ancient  religion  of  that  people,  but  with  a  well 
known  oriental  usage  of  describing  certain  royal  races  as  desc3ndants  of 
the  sun,  whether  this  be  regarded  as  a  superstitious  myth  or  a  poetical 
hyperbole.  It  is  expressly  asserted  by  Herodotus  that  C^tus  originally 
bore  another  name.  This  name  is  said  by  Strabo  to  have  been  Atjriulates, 
which  Hitzig  reckons  as  a  mere  mistake,  occasioned  by  confounding  the 
river  Kusoc  with  the  monarch  of  the  same  name,  whereas  Pott,  Von  Lcn- 
gerke,  and  others,  trace  it  to  the  same  root  with  '•"?)i3,  and  the  same 
primary  sense  of  sun.  To  this  etymology  there  seems  to  be  an  allusion  in 
chap.  xli.  2,  25,  where  Cyrus  is  so  emphatically  said  to  have  risen  in  the 
east  and  pursued  his  course  westwards.  This  explanation  of  the  name  is 
strongly  favoured  by  the  numerous  analogies  in  this  and  other  languages, 
the  KgAptian  Pharanhs  and  Ptolemies,  the  Philistian  Abimelechs,  the 
Amalekitish  Agags,  the  Uonian  Cajsars.  The  result  of  these  considerations 
is,  that  the  prophecy  before  us,  although  still  relating  to  the  individual 
Cyrus,  is  not  so  variant  in  form  from  the  usual  analogy  of  prophecy,  as  to 
afford  any  ground  for  the  suspicion  that  the  passage  is  on  that  account  of 
later  date.  For  the  most  satisfactory  discussion  of  this  point,  see  Heng- 
stenbcrg's  Christologie,  i.  p.  192,  and  Havcmick's  Eiuleitung,  ii.  p.  1G9. 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAR  XLV.  177 

CHAPTEPw  XLV. 

This  chapter  contains  the  same  essential  elements  with  those  before  it, 
but  in  new  combinations  and  a  varied  form.  The  great  theme  of  the  pro- 
phecy is  still  the  relation  of  Israel  to  God  as  his  chosen  people,  and  to  the 
nations  as  a  source  or  medium  of  saving  knowledge.  This  last  idea  is 
brought  out  with  great  distinctness  at  the  close  of  the  chapter.  The  proofs 
and  illustrations  of  the  doctrine  taught  are  still  di'awn  from  the  power  of 
Jehovah,  as  displayed  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  as  contrasted  with 
the  impotence  of  idols.  The  evidence  of  prescience  afforded  by  the  pro- 
phecy is  also  here  repeated  and  enlarged  upon.  As  a  particular  prospective 
exhibition  both  of  power  and  foreknowledge,  we  have  still  before  us  the 
conquests  of  Cyrus,  which  are  specifically  foretold  and  explicitly  connected 
with  the  favour  of  Jehovah  as  their  procuring  cause,  and  with  the  hberation 
of  his  people  and  the  demonstration  of  his  deity,  as  their  designed  effect. 

As  to  the  order  and  arrangement  of  the  parts,  the  chapter  opens,  in 
direct  continuation  of  the  forty-fourth,  with  a  further  prophecy  of  Cyrus 
and  of  his  successes,  vers.  1-3.  These  are  then  referred  to  the  power  of 
God  and  his  design  of  mercy  towards  his  people,  so  that  all  misgivings  or 
distrust  must  be  irrational  and  impious,  vers.  4-13.  Then  leaving  Cyrus 
out  of  view,  the  Prophet  turns  his  eyes  to  the  nations,  and  declares  that 
they  must  be  subdued,  but  only  in  order  to  be  blessed  and  saved,  which  is 
declared  to  have  been  the  divine  purpose,  and  revealed  as  such  from  the 
beginning,  vers.  14-25. 

1.  Thus  saith  Jehovah  to  his  anointed,  to  Cyrus,  whose  right  hand  I  hare 
held  fast,  to  tread  down  before  him  natioiis,  and  the  loins  of  kings  I  will  loose; 
to  open  before  him  double  doors,  and  gates  shall  not  be  shut.  The  words  of 
Jehovah  seem  to  begin  regularly  with  the  next  verse  ;  but  even  in  this, 
which  is  strictly  introductory,  they  are  mingled  with  the  Prophet's  descrip- 
tion of  Cyrus,  a  mode  of  composition  very  common  in  Hebrew,  and  among 
the  oldest  writers,  who  thought  more  of  the  idea  than  of  the  foiTn  in  which 
it  was  expressed.  The  accumulation  of  descriptive  epithets,  which  Gesenius 
represents  as  characteristic  of  these  Later  Prophecies,  arises  from  the  fact 
that  one  main  object  which  the  writer  had  in  view  was  to  impress  upon  the 
reader's  mind  the  attributes  of  God  and  of  his  chosen  instruments. — Cyrus 
is  here  called  the  Lord's  anointed,  a  designation  elsewhere  limited,  as 
Calvin  says,  to  the  sacerdotal  monarchy  of  Judah,  which  prefigured  Christ 
in  both  his  offices  of  priest  and  king. — Most  writers  understand  it  here  as 
a  synonyme  of  king,  derived  from  Jewish  usages,  and  not  intended  to  indi- 
cate anything  peculiar  in  the  royalty  of  Cyrus,  except  that  he  was  raised  up 
by  Jehovah  for  a  special  purpose.  Calvin  thinks  it  still  more  pregnant 
and  emphatic,  and  descriptive  of  Cyrus  as  a  representative  of  Christ  in  this 
one  thing,  that  he  was  instrumental!}'  the  saviour  or  deliverer  of  Israel  from 
bondage. — The  treading  down  of  nations  is  a  trait  peculiarly  appropriate  in 
this  case,  as  the  Greek  historians  give  long  catalogues  of  distinct  nations 
subjugated  by  Cyrus,  such  as  the  Medes,  Hyrcanians,  Assyrians,  Arabians, 
Cappadocians,  Phrygians,  Lydians,  Carians,  Babylonians,  &c. — To  loose 
the  loins  of  kings  is  explained  by  Calvin  as  meaning  to  weaken  them, 
because  the  strength  is  in  the  loins ;  and  Rosenmiiller  cites,  in  illustration 
of  this  usage,  the  Latin  verb  and  adjective,  delumbo  and  elumbis.  Luther. 
Clericus,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  removal  of  the 
sword-belt,  as  the  ancient  method  of  disarming  or  dismissing  from  active 

VOL.  II.  M 


178  IS.lLUl   XLf.  lVeb.  2-4. 

service.  Either  of  these  explanations  is  bettor  than  Jerome's,  which  sup- 
poses an  alhision  simply  to  the  royal  cincture  as  a  badge  of  othce.  But 
most  of  the  modern  writt-rs  are  agreed  that  the  words  at  least  include  a 
reference  to  the  ordinary  use  of  the  girdle  as  a  part  of  orientiil  dress,  on 
which  the  activity  of  the  wearer  and  his  exorcise  of  strength  are  in  a  great 
degree  dependent,  as  it  gathers  up  and  tightens  the  flowing  garments  which 
would  otherwise  impede  his  niovemonts.  The  exclusive  reference  of  this 
clause  to  the  kings  of  Lydia  and  Babylon  is  arbitraiT,  and  detracts  from 
the  pfroatncss  of  the  promise  and  description. — The  dual  D'O^,"^  is  the  proper 
Hebrew  term  for  valves,  folding-doors,  or  two-leaved  gates.  All  interpreters 
admit  that  while  this  clause,  in  its  most  general  sense,  is  perfectly  appro- 
priate to  all  the  fortilied  places  which  were  attacked  by  Cyrus,  it  is  specili- 
cally  and  remarkably  appropriate  to  the  taking  i>f  Babylon.  It  can  scarcely 
be  considered  a  fortuitous  coincidence,  that  Herodotus  speaks  of  the  gates 
which  led  to  the  river  as  having  been  left  open  on  the  night  of  the  attack  ; 
and  Xonophon  says  the  doors  of  the  palace  itself  having  been  unguardedly 
opened,  the  invaders  took  possession  of  it  almost  without  resistance.  These 
apparent  allusions  to  particular  circumstances  and  events,  couched  under 
general  predictions,  are  far  more  sb-iking  and  conclusive  proofs  of  inspira- 
tion than  the  most  explicit  and  detailed  prediction  of  the  particular  event 
alone  could  be. 

2.  I  uill  go  before  thee,  and  uneven  places  I  iciU  lecel,  doors  of  brass  I 
will  break,  and  bars  of  iron  J  will  cut.  The  first  eluuso  deseribos  the 
removal  of  diflicultios  under  the  figures  used  for  the  same  purpose  in  chap, 
xl.  4.  The  other  clause  would  seem  at  first  sight  to  contain  an  analogous 
figure  ;  but  it  really  includes  one  of  those  minute  coincidences  with  history, 
of  which  we  have  already  had  an  example  in  the  preceding  verse.  Herodo- 
tus and  Abydenus  say  expressly  that  the  gates  of  Babylon  were  all  of  brass. 
(Compare  Ps.  cvii.  10.) 

3.  And  I  will  qire  the  treasures  of  darkness  and  hidden  riches  of  secret 
places,  in  order  that  thou  mayest  know  that  I  Jehovah,  the  [one]  calling  the« 
by  name,  am  the  God  of  Israel.  It  is  thoug:ht  by  somo  oniinont  WTitors  that 
no  conquests  have  over  been  attended  with  such  acquisitions  of  wealth  a> 
those  of  Cyrus.  Pliny's  account  of  what  he  obtained  from  Crcosus  makes 
it,  according  to  Brerewood's  computation,  more  than  12(5,000,000  pounds 
sterling.  The  last  clause  gives  a  reason  why  this  circumstance  is  men- 
tioned, namely,  in  order  that  Cyrus  might  bo  able  to  identify  the  Being 
who  brought  it  to  pass  with  the  Being  who  foretold  it.  The  same  oon- 
sidoration  will  account  for  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Cynis  ;  so  that  even 
if  it  were  a  bolder  violation  of  analog}'  and  tisage  than  it  is,  there  would 
still  be  a  sufficient  explanation  of  it  fumi.shed  by  the  divine  purpose  to 
exert  a  direct  influence  through  this  prediction  upon  Cynis  himself.  That 
such  an  influence  was  really  exerted  by  the  writings  (»f  Isaiah  is  expressly 
asserted  by  Joscphus,  and  would  seem  to  bo  implied  in  the  monarch's 
solemn  recognition  of  Jehovah  as  the  tnic  God,  and  the  aiithor  of  his  suc- 
cesses (E/.ra  i.  2). 

•1.  For  the  sake  of  mg  servant  Jacob  and  Israel  mg  chosen,  therefore  will  I 
call  thee  bg  thg  name,  I  will  give  thee  a  title  and  thou  hast  not  known  me. 
Not  only  for  God's  gloi-y  in  the  general,  but  with  a  view  t<)  the  promotion 
of  his  gracious  purposes  towards  Israel.  The  ^  before  ^^??^  introduces  the 
apodosis,  and  may  bo  taken  as  equivalent  to  thevrfore. — The  sense  of  8f>c< ik- 
ing kiuiUy,  which  the  modern  writers  give  to  "13???,  is  bore  much  loss  appro- 
priate thiui  that  of  giving  a  title  of  honour,  with  apparent  reference  to  tho 


Ver.  5-8.]  ISAIAH  XLV.  179 

epithets  of  shepherd  aud  anointed,  bestowed  on  Cpms  alone  among  the 
heathen  princes.  Thou  hast  not  Icnown  vie  ma}'  either  mean  that  he  was 
not  a  follower  of  the  true  religion,  or  that  the  name  was  given  long  before 
he  did  or  could  know  anything  of  Him  who  gave  it.  The  verb  expresses 
past  time  not  in  reference  to  the  date  of  the  prediction,  but  to  that  of  the 
fulfilment. 

5.  /  (nil  Jehovah  (/'.  e.  the  eternal,  seK-existont  God)  and  there  is  no 
other ;  except  me  there  is  no  God ;  I  tvill  gird  thee  and  thou  hast  not  hnoicn 
me.  What  is  said  before  of  naming  him  is  here  said  of  girding  him,  /.  e. 
investing  him  with  royal  dignity  or  personally  strengthening  him  ;  both 
may  be  included. 

6.  That  they  may  know,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  west  (or  to  his 
going  down),  that  there  is  none  without  me ;  lam  Jehorah,  and  there  is  no 
other.  ^Vhat  was  said  before  of  Cyrus  in  particular  is  now  said  of  men  in 
general,  viz.,  that  they  must  be  convinced  in  this  way  that  the  God  of 
Israel  is  the  one  true  God.  Some  of  the  Jewish  critics  regard  the  final 
letter  of  n3"iJ?D  as  a  suffix  referring  to  the  feminine  noun  ^■^^,  notwith- 
standing the  absence  of  mappik.  The  noun  to  which  it  is  annexed  would 
then  have  its  primary  sense  [oceasKs,  setting)  ;  otherwise  it  is  a  feminine 
designation  of  the  west. 

7.  Forming  light  and  creating  darkness,  making  peace  and  creating  evil,  I 
(am)  Jehorah  doing  all  these  [things).  iSaadias,  followed  by  Yitringa, 
Lowth,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Henderson,  and  Umbreit,  supposes  an  allusion  to 
the  dualism  or  doctrine  of  two  co-cterual  principles  as  held  by  the  ancieut 
Persians.  Gesenius  objects  that  the  terms  are  too  indefinite,  and  their 
general  sense  too  obvious,  to  admit  of  this  specific  application.  But  this 
whole  passage  is  characterized  by  the  recurrence  of  expressions,  the  generic 
sense  of  which  seems  clear,  but  which,  at  the  same  time,  seem  to  bear  and 
even  to  require  a  more  specific  explanation,  unless  we  choose  rather  to 
assume  an  extraordinary  series  of  fortuitous  coincidences.  The  open  doors, 
the  gates  of  brass,  the  hidden  treasures,  are  examples  of  this  double  sense, 
if  such  it  may  be  called,  within  the  compass  of  three  verses.  This  analogy 
makes  it  rather  probable  than  otherwise  that  in  the  case  before  us,  while 
the  Prophet's  language  may  be  naturally  taken  as  a  general  description  of 
God's  miiversal  power,  an  allusion  was  intended  to  the  great  distinctive 
doctrine  of  the  laith  in  which  Cyrus  had  most  probably  been  educated. 
For  although  it  cannot  be  distinctly  proved,  it  can  as  little  be  disproved, 
and  is  intrinsically  altogether  credible,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Zendavesta 
is  as  old  as  Cyrus. 

8.  Drop  (or  distil),  ye  heavens,  from  above,  and  let  the  clouds  pour  out 
righteousness ;  let  the  earth  open,  and  let  salvation  and  righteousness  grow, 
let  her  bring  {th^'m)  forth  together.  I  Jehovah  have  created  it.  Tliere  is  a 
singular  equivoque  in  the  common  version  of  the  first  clause.  Drop  dovni, 
ye  heavens,  from  above,  which  might  seem  to  be  a  call  upon  the  skies  to  fall, 
if  the  sense  were  not  determined  by  the  parallel  expression.  The  predic- 
tion of  events  in  the  fonn  of  a  command  is  peculiai'ly  frequent  in  Isaiah's 
later  prophecies.  The  modern  explanation  of  P!7V  and  ^i^"7V  as  moaning 
victory,  prosperity,  &c.,  is  entirely  arbitrary,  as  we  have  already  seen  in 
other  cases.  The  manifestation  of  God's  righteousness,  including  his  fide- 
lit}'  to  his  engagements,  is  constantly  recognised  in  Scripture  as  one  chief 
end  of  his  dispensations. — In  the  second  clause  there  is  a  difficulty  of  con- 
struction, arising  from  the  use  of  the  plural  form  -I"!?*,  to  explain  which 
some  make  H^  a  collective,  others,  Vw'v.     (Compare  chap.  xvi.  4,  aud  Ps. 


180  ISAIAH  XL  r.  [YtR.  y. 

cxi.T.  103,)  After  all  attempts,  liowever,  to  resolve  the  syntax,  the  nu.st 
satisfactory  construction,  although  not  the  most  consistent  with  tlie 
M:\soretic  accents,  is  the  one  proposed  by  Kiuu-lii,  who  connects  the 
plural  verb  with  the  next  two  nouns,  and  repeats  VT)??  as  the  subject  of 
n'pyj?.  Next  to  this  is  the  one  given  by  Luzzatto,  who  makes  ^'^??  mean 
brimi  forth  (as  in  Deut.  xxix.  17)  and  agree  with  D'^V'- — J-  ^-  Michaelis 
expliiiiis  this  whole  verso  as  relating  to  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment. 

9.  // 0?  to  (or  alax  for)  him  striving  uith  his  Maher — a  potsherd  with  pot- 
sherds of  earth.  Shidl  clay  say  to  its  former,  If 'hat  art  thou  doinyf  and  thy 
uork,  He  has  no  hands  /  Tbe  translation  of  *1'"l  as  a  simple  exclamation  by 
Hitzig  (//«.')  and  Ewald  (O!)  does  not  meet  tbe  requisitions  either  of 
general  usage  or  the  context,  which  require  it  to  Le  taken  as  an  expression 
of  displeasure,  or  sympathy,  or  both.—  Striving  with  God  is  not  merely 
active  resistance,  but  opposition  of  judgment  and  affection.  — The  word 
^ly',  used  twice  in  this  verse,  is  peculiarly  expressive  ;  because  it  derives 
from  etymology  the  general  sense  of  former,  fashioner,  and  from  usage  the 
specific  sense  of  potter,  which  is  in  strict  agreement  with  the  figurative 
language  of  both  clauses. — The  second  member  of  the  first  clause  has  been 
very  variously  construed.  The  analogy  of  what  precedes  would  seem  to 
make  it  mean,  iiue  to  the  jiutsherd.s  (^striri)if/)  uith  the  potsherds  of  the  earth. 
But  this  is  univerpally  agreed  to  be  inadmissible,  a  proof  that  the  principle 
of  paralleli.sm  has  its  limitations.  Mariana  ingeniously  but  needlessly  pro- 
poses to  read^V^I?  :  let  the  potsherd  strive  with  the  workmen  (i.  e.  potters) 
of  the  earth.  Yitringa  applies  the  same  construction  to  the  common  text : 
let  the  potsherd  strive  with  the  potsherds  of  the  earth,  but  not  with  God. 
The  Peshito  renders  it,  a  potsherd  of  [or  from)  the  polshnds  of  the  earth, 
thus  making  the  wbole  phrase  a  description  of  the  weakness  and  insignifi- 
cance of  man.  This  construction  is  adopted  by  the  modern  wr.ttrs, 
almost  without  exception  ;  most  of  whom,  however,  give  to  ri^  its  proper 
sense  of  tn//i,  which  they  suppose  to  imply  likeness  and  relationship,  like 
Cy  iu  Eccles.  ii,  10. — It  seems  to  be  a  just  observation  of  Hitzig,  that 
eaith  is  not  mentioned  as  the  dwelling  of  the  potsherd,  but  as  its  material, 
which  is  indeed  the  predominant  usage  of  "^P^^  "s  di>tiiiguishcd  from  V?!'^. 
The  verb  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  clause  might  be  rendered  either 
does,  vnll,  can,  or  should  say;  but  all  that  is  necessaiT  to  the  writer's 
purpose  may  be  considered  as  implied  or  included  in  the  simple  future. 
(Compare  chap.  x.  15,  and  vol.  i.  p.  280.)  The  same  thing  is  sub- 
stantially true  of  the  verb  •^PT'?;  but  iu  this  case,  the  exact  force  of  tho 
Hebrew  word  may  be  best  expressed  by  our  compound  present,  uhut  art 
thou  doiny  or  about  to  do?  This  is  the  common  Hebrew  furmula  for  calling 
to  account,  or  questioning  the  propriety  of  what  one  does.  (See  Job.  ix.  12, 
Eccles.  viii.  1,  Dan.  iv.  82.) — The  last  words  of  tho  verso  have  also  been 
the  subject  of  many  discordant  explanations.  Some  of  the  older  writers  make 
them  a  contiuuiition  of  the  same  speech  :  ]Vhat  art  thou  Joiny  1  and  {as 
for)  thy  xcoih,  it  has  no  hands,  i.  e.  it  is  unfinished.  But  most  interpreters 
agree  that  thy  nork  inlmduces  a  new  speaker.  And  [shall)  thy  tco.k  {say 
of  thee)  he  has  no  hands.'  The  unexpected  introduction  of  the  second 
person  {thy  tvork)  led  Houbignnt  and  Lowth  to  suppose  a  transi>osition  of 
the  pronouns,  and  to  read  his  uork  and  thou  hast  mi  hands,  which  may  bo 
saftly  set  aside  as  a  violent  and  worthless  emendation.  Maurer  accounts 
for  the  second  person  by  supposing  it  to  bo  employed  indefinitely,  thy  trork 
i.  e.  the  work  of  anv  one  to  whom  the  words  may  be  adilressed.     Hitzig 


I 


Vku.  10,  ll.j  JSAIAU  XLV.  181 

still  better  makes  the  Prophet  pass  abruptly  from  the  sign  to  the  thing 
signified,  from  thu  supposed  case  to  the  real  one,  from  the  potter  to  Jehovah. 
There  (lie  no  liuiuh  to  him,  i.  e.  he  has  no  power.  The  absurdit}'  consists 
iu  the  thing  made  denying  the  existence  of  the  hands  by  which  it  was  itself 
produced.  The  essential  idea  is  the  same  as  in  chap.  x.  15,  but  the  ex- 
pression here  much  stronger,  since  the  instrument  is  not  merely  charged 
with  exalting  itself  above  the  ethcient  agent,  but  the  creature  with  denying 
the  power  or  skill  of  its  Creator. — The  restriction  of  this  verse,  and  of  those 
which  follow,  to  the  Babylonians,  or  the  Jews  in  exile,  is  entirely  arbitrary 
and  at  variance  with  the  context,  which  refers  to  the  conquests  of  Cyrus 
and  their  consequences,  not  as  the  main  subject  of  the  prophec}',  but  as 
illusi rations  of  a  general  truth. — The  form  of  speech  used  by  Paul  in  Kom. 
ix.  20,  (irhi/  hast  thou  made  mc  thus  f)  is  not  a  version  but  a  paraphrase  of 
n^'yFlTlD,  in  which  however  it  is  really  included. 

10.  JfW  to  (/;//?i)  xaijing  to  a  father,  JThat  tn'It  thou  hcget,  and  to  a 
woman.  What  wilt  thou  bring  forth /^  The  same  idea  is  again  expressed, 
but  in  a  form  still  more  emphatic  and  revolting.  The  incongruities  which 
have  perplexed  interpreters  in  this  verse  are  intentional  aggravations  of  the 
impious  absurdity  which  it  describes.  The  arbitrarj'  change  of  the  future 
to  the  present  {what  bcgettest  thou?)  or  the  past  {ivhat  hast  thou  brought 

forth  ?)  is  not  only  incorrect  in  point  of  gi-ammar,  but  subversive  of  the 
writer's  main  design,  which  is  to  represent  the  doubt  and  discontent  of  men 
in  reference  to  God's  future  dealings  with  them  as  no  less  monstrous  than 
the  supposition  of  a  child's  objection  to  its  own  birth.  Such  an  objection, 
it  is  true,  cannot  be  olfered  in  the  case  supposed  ;  but  in  the  real  case  it 
ought  to  be  held  equally  impossible.  This  view  of  the  Prophet's  meaning, 
if  correct,  of  course  precludes  the  explanation  of  the  words  as  a  complaint 
of  weakness  or  deformity,  or  an  expression  of  disgust  with  life  like  that  in 
Job  iii.  20,  and  Jeremiah  xx.  1-4. 

11.  llnis  saith  Jehovah,  the  Hohj  One  of  Israel  and  his  Malcer,  Ask  me 
(of)  titc  tilings  to  come,  concerning  my  sons  and  concerning  the  ivorh  of  my 
hands  ye  may  command  me.  The  Septuagint  divides  the  sentence  diftcr- 
ently,  and  reads  o  rroiriaa;  ra  hisy^o'xivu.  This,  which  seems  to  be  a  mere 
inadvertence  or  mistake,  is  regarded  by  Lowth  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  a 
change  of  text,  and  he  translates  accordingly  he  that  formeth  the  things 
rvhich  are  to  come.  All  other  writers  seem  to  follow  the  Masoretic  inter- 
punction,  which  connects  the  participle  with  the  second  clause.  Verbs  of 
asking,  as  in  Latin,  govern  two  accusatives.  (See  Ps,  exxxvii.  3). — Vitringa 
takes  '^l^i^V'  as  a  preterite,  and  makes  the  last  clause  an  interrogation, 
They  ask  me,  and  will  ye  command  me  ?  l>ut  we  have  then  an  abrupt 
transition,  not  only  from  affirmation  to  interrogation,  but  from  the  third  to 
the  second  person.  Hitzig  removes  one  of  these  anomalies  by  aggravating 
tho  other,  reading  both  the  verbs  interrogatively,  do  they  ask  '  and  ivill  ye 
command  ■  By  far  the  simplest  syntax  is  the  common  one,  which  makes  the 
first  verb  an  imperative,  analogous  in  form  to  ^J-iyD's^'  (Gen.  xxiii.  8),  where- 
as the  preterite  would  be  '>1?N^',  as  iu  Ps.  exxxvii.  3.  (Compare  '^^'S?^', 
Gen.  xxxii.  18).  Some  who  adopt  this  explanation  of  the  first  verb  give  tbo 
o;her  an  imperative  form  also,  a  needless  and  dubious  assimilation.  There 
is  also  a  diversity  of  judgment  as  to  the  relation  of  these  verbs,  and  of  the 
sentences  iu  which  they  stand  to  one  another.  Most  of  the  late  inter- 
preters suppose  an  antithetical  relation,  and  explain  the  cause  as  meaning, 
you  may  ask  me  about  things  to  come,  but  leave  the  disposal  of  my  children 
to  myself.     This  not  only  requires  an  adversative  particle  to  be  inserted, 


182  ISAIAH  XLV.  [Ver.  12,  13. 

which  is  c)ften  the  force  of  the  Hehrew  copulative,  hnt  involves  a  distinction 
without  a  diHtirencc ;  niuce  the  fortunes  t)f  God's  children  were  themselves 
thimja  to  come,  and  the  very  things  to  come  respecting  which  the  people 
would  he  probahly  most  anxious  to  inquire.  It  is  better  therefore  to  regard 
the  parallelism  as  synonymous,  not  antithetical,  and  to  understand  both 
verbs  as  conceding  an  indulgence  to  those  who  are  addressed.  You  may 
ask  me  concerning  things  to  come,  for  I  am  able  to  infonn  you  ;  you  may 
trust  my  children  to  my  care,  for  I  am  abundantly  able  to  protect  them. — 
^J?  i^jy  is  a  common  expression  for  giving  one  authority  over  any  thing  or 
person,  or  in  other  words  committing  it  to  him,  and  leaving  it  at  his  dis- 
posal.— For  the  meaning  of  icork  of  my  hands  as  an  equivak-nt  to  my 
children  or  yny  people,  see  vol.  i.  p.  801. 

1*2.  /  made  the  earth,  and  man  upon  it  I  created ;  I,  my  hands,  spread  the 
heavens,  and  all  their  host  commanded.  This  is  a  justification  of  the  eliiim 
in  the  last  clause  of  the  foregoing  verse,  or  a  statement  of  the  reason  why 
he  could  be  trusted  to  protect  his  people,  namely,  because  he  was  almighty, 
and  had  proved  himself  to  be  so  in  creation. — The  personal  pronoun  is 
emphatic  in  both  clauses,  as  if  he  had  said.  It  is  I  ivho  made,  or  /  {and  no 
other)  made,  itc.  The  construction  of  the  second  of  these  pronouns  wth 
my  hands  has  been  variously  explained.  Some  regard  the  latter  as  equiva- 
lent to  an  ablative  of  instalment  in  Latin  :  /  with  my  hands  hare  spread, 
&c.  Others  consider  it  an  instance  of  the  idiom  which  adils  the  personal 
pronoun  to  the  suilix  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  :  /,  my  hands  spread,  i.  e. 
my  own  hands  spread.  In  such  constructions  the  personal  pronoun  com- 
monly stands  last.  A  third  supposition  is  that  the  pronoun  is  in  apposition 
with  the  uoim  itself,  and  is  not  so  much  emphatic  as  explanatory.  /  (that 
is  to  say,  my  hands)  have  spread.  (Compare  Ps.  iii.  5.  xvii.  18,  14,  xliv.  3, 
Ix.  7.) — The  last  words  of  the  verse  admit  of  two  explanations.  We  may 
understand  the  figure  as  a  military  one,  and  give  the  verb  the  military'  sense 
of  commanding.  Or  we  maj'  take  host  as  a  common  expression  for  contents 
or  inhabitants,  and  undt-rstand  the  verb  as  meaning  called  into  existence. 
(Compare  Ps.  xxxiii.  9.)  In  itself,  the  former  explanation  seems  entitled 
to  the  preference ;  but  it  requires  the  verb  to  be  construed  as  an  indefinite 
prater  or  a  present,  whereas  all  the  other  verbs,  thougli  similar  in  form, 
relate  to  a  deteniiinate  past  time,  viz.  the  time  of  the  creation. 

1.3.  /  (and  no  other)  raised  him  uj}  in  riyhtronsness,  and  all  his  nays  trill 
I  make  straiyht  (or  level);  {it  is)  he  {fhaf^  shall  build  my  city,  and  my  cap- 
tivity (or  exiles)  he  will  send  (home^,  not  for  reward,  and  not  for  hire,  saith 
Jihnrah  of  husts.  From  the  general  proof  of  divine  power  aflorded  by 
creation,  he  descends  to  the  particular  exercise  of  his  omnipotence  and 
wisdom  in  the  raising  uj)  of  Cyrus,  who  is  thus  referred  to  without  the  ex- 
press mention  of  his  name,  because  he  had  been  previously  madi-  the 
subject  of  a  siiuiliar  appeal,  and  the  Prophet  simply  takes  up  the  thread 
which  ho  lia<l  dropped  at  the  close  of  the  fifth  verse,  or  perhaps  of  the 
seventh.  t*mtM  the  sense  of  raisiny  ?//>  t»  riyhleousnesa,  see  above  on 
chajis.  xli.  2,  2.'),  xlii.  (5.  In  this,  as  well  as  in  the  other  places,  Vitringa 
supposes  an  ahusion  to  the  personal  character  of  Cyrus,  \>hich  he  dt-fends 
with  great  warmth  against  liurnet's  remark  in  his  History  of  the  lleforma- 
tion,  that  God  soint  times  uses  bad  men  as  his  instruments,  such  as  the 
cruel  Cyrus.  The  statements  of  Herodotus  to  this  eth  ct  Vitringa  treats  as 
fabulous,  and  claims  full  credit  for  the  glowing  juctures  of  the  Cyropaediu. 
This  distinction  is  not  only  strange  in  itself,  but  completely  at  war  with  the 
conclusions  of  the  ablest  modem  critics  and  historians.     Nor  is  there  the 


Ver.  14.]  ISAIAH  XLV.  183 

least  need  of  insisting  thus  upon  the  moral  excellence  of  Cyrus,  who  in 
either  case  was  just  as  really  a  consecrated  iustrameut  of  the  di^'ine 
righteousness,  as  the  Modes  and  Persians  generally,  who  are  so  described 
in  chap.  xiii.  3.  (See  vol.  i,  p.  269.)  At  the  same  time  allowance 
must  bo  made  for  the  ditforence  between  what  Cynis  was  before  and  after 
he  bocamo  acquainted  with  the  true  religion.  (See  above,  on  ver.  3.) 
The  figure  of  straight  or  level  paths  has  the  same  sense  as  in  chap.  xl.  3. 
— Ml/  citij,  i.  e.  the  holy  city,  Jerusalem,  of  which  C}tus  was  indirectly  the 
rcbnilder. — The  form  of  the  verb.sr;u/  here  used  is  not  unfrequently  applied 
to  the  setting  free  of  prisoners  or  slaves. — The  last  clause  seems  decisive 
of  the  question  whether  chap,  xliii.  3,  4,  should  be  understood  as  a  general 
declai'ation  of  God's  distinguishing  atiection  for  his  people,  disposing  him 
to  favour  them  at  the  expense  of  other  nations,  or  as  a  specific  promise  that 
Cyrus  should  conquer  Ethiopia  and  Egypt,  as  a  compensation  for  releasing 
Israel,  in  which  case  he  couM  not  be  said,  in  any  appropriate  sense,  to  have 
set  them  free  without  reward  or  hire. 

14.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  The  toil  of  Eg y jit,  and  the  gain  of  Cush,  and  the 
Sehaim  men  of  measure  unto  thee  shall  pass,  and  to  thee  shall  they  belong,  after 
thee  shall  they  go,  in  chains  shall  they  pass  over  (or  along) ;  and  unto  tliee 
shall  they  how  themselves,  to  thee  shall  they  pray  (saying),  Only  in  thee  (is) 
Gud,  and  there  is  none  besides,  no  (other)  God.  The  first  clause  specifies 
labour  and  traffic  as  the  two  great  sources  of  wealth,  here  put  for  wealth 
itself,  or  for  the  people  who  possessed  it.  C<?P  is  construed  by  some 
writers  as  a  genitive  dependent  on  "inp  the  trade  of  Ethiopia  and  of  the 
Saheans;  by  others,  as  the  nominative  to  the  next  verb,  the  Saheans  shall 
pass  over  to  thee  ;  a  grammatical  distinction  not  afiecting  the  sense.  For 
the  true  sense  of  the  geographical  or  national  names  here  mentioned,  see 
above  on  chap,  xliii.  3.  In  both  places  they  are  named,  as  Hitzig  well  ob- 
serves, by  way  of  sample  (beisjnelsioeise)  for  the  heathen  world.  To  the 
reasons  before  given  for  this  interpretation,  we  may  here  add  the  general 
reference  to  idolaters  in  ver.  10. — The  Targum  seems  to  explain  iTJTp  here 
as  meaning  trade  (XIIPID);  and  others  give  it  that  of  tribute,  which  has  in 
Chaldee  (Ezra  iv.  20,  and  in  Neh.  v.  4).  But  the  meaning  men  of  mea- 
sure, i.  e.  of  extraordinary  stature,  is  determined  by  the  analog}'  of  Num. 
xiii.  32,  1  Chron.  xi.  23,  xx.  G,  and  confirmed  by  the  description  of  the 
Ethiopians  in  ancient  history,  Herodotus  speaking  of  them  as  fMsyiaroi 
dvd^uirrctjv,  and  Solinus  more  specifically  as  duodecim  pedes  longi.  According 
to  Knobcl,  their  stature  is  here  mentioned,  in  order  to  show  that  they  were 
able-bodied,  and  would  be  profitable  servants  to  the  Jews  ;  but  most  inter- 
preters cori'ectly  understand  it  as  a  cii'cumstance  intended  to  enhance  the 
glory  and  importance  of  the  conquest. — ^!?JJ  might  be  understood  to  mean 
against  thee;  but  this  sense  is  precluded  by  the  next  phrase,  they  shall  be 
(or  belong)  to  thee,  as  well  as  by  the  epexegetical  addition,  they  sh'dl  jmss  in 
chains.  Whether  these  are  here  considered  as  imposed  by  their  conquerors, 
or  by  themselves  in  token  of  a  voluntary  submission,  is  a  question  which 
the  words  themselves  leave  undecided.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of 
the  prostration  mentioned  afterwards,  which  in  itself  might  be  considered 
as  denoting  the  customary  oriental  act  of  obeisance  or  civil  adoration, 
although  usually  found  in  such  connections  as  require  it  to  be  taken  in  a 
religious  sense,  which  is  here  further  indicated  by  the  addition  of  the  verb 
to  pray.  The  seeming  incongruity  of  thus  ascribing  di\ine  honours  to  a 
creature,  may  be  avoided  by  taking  "^v?<  in  a  local  sense,  as  meaning  to- 
wards thee,  but  not  to  thee,  as  the  object  of  the  adoration.     But  a  simpler 


184  JSAIAII  XLV.  Ver.  15. 

Bolution  of  the  difficulty  is,  that  these  strong  expressions  were  employed 
because  the  explanation  was  to  follow.  Instead  of  saying,  thnj  shall  worship 
God  wlio  duclls  ill  thee,  the  Prophet  makes  his  laT)guaj,'e  more  expressive 
by  saying,  they  shall  worship  thee ;  and  then  immediately  explains  his  own 
language  by  adding  their  acknowledgment,  (mly  in  tlicc  is  God,  or  to  give 
the  Hebrew  word  its  full  force,  an  almiijiity  ilod,  implying  that  tlic  gods  of 
other  nations  were  but  gods  in  name.  This  exclusive  recognition  of  the 
God  of  Israel  is  then  repeated  in  a  way  which  may  to  some  seem  tauto- 
logical, but  which  is  really  emphatic  in  a  high  degree. — The  application  of 
the  suffixes  in  this  verse  to  Cyrus  is  inconsistent  with  the  Masoretic  point- 
ing, which  makes  them  feminine.  This  is  regarded  by  Vitringa  and  Gesenius 
as  an  oversight  of  Grotius,  occasioned  by  his  looking  at  the  Latin  text  and 
not  the  Hebrew.  But  the  same  construction  seems  to  be  approved  by 
Aben  Ezra  and  Ewald,  who  must  therefore  be  considered  as  departing  from 
the  common  punctuation.  The  feminine  pronouns  of  the  common  text  may 
be  referred  either  to  ri1'?5  (captivity)  in  ver.  13,  or  to  'TV  (wiy  city)  in  the 
same  verse,  or  to  /NX'."  JTiy  (the  congregation  ff  Israel),  in  all  which  cases 
the  real  object  of  address  is  still  substantially  the  same,  viz.,  the  ancient 
church  or  chosen  people. — The  question  now  presents  itself,  in  what  sense 
the  subjection  of  the  nations  is  here  promised.  That  a  literal  conquest  of 
Ethiopia  and  Egypt  by  the  Jews  themselves  is  here  predicted,  none  can 
maintain  but  those  who  wish  to  fasten  on  Isaiah  the  charge  of  ignorance  or 
gross  imposture.  An  ingenious  Jewish  writer  of  our  own  day,  Luzzatto, 
supposes  the  Prophet  to  foretell  a  literal  subjection  of  these  countries,  not 
by  Israel,  but  by  Cyrus  ;  and  explains  the  whole  verse  as  describing  the 
conduct  of  the  captives  when  they  phould  ]iass  hy  the  land  of  Israel  in 
chains  on  their  way  to  Persia,  and  acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  Jehovah 
by  worshipping  towards  his  earthly  residence.  In  order  to  sustain  this  in- 
genious and  original  intei-pretation,  its  author  is  under  the  necessitv  of  tak- 
ing V.'y  and  inp  as  elliptical  expressions  for  Vi".  V^i<  and  inpO  't"3N,  men 
of  labour,  men  of  traffic,  i.  e.  labourers  and  traders.  He  is  also  forced  to 
explain  away  some  of  the  most  significant  expressions,  such  as  they  shall  be 
thine,  they  shall  go  after  thee,  as  merely  indicating  di.'^position  or  desire. 
The  violence  thus  done  to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  Prophet's  language 
is  sufficient  to  condemn  the  exposition  which  involves  it.  The  same  inter- 
pretation is  substantially  proposed  by  Ewald,  but  more  briefly  and  obscurely, 
and  with  his  usual  omission  of  all  reference  to  other  writers,  which  leaves 
it  doubtful  whether  he  derived  it  from  Luzzatto,  or  arrived  nt  it  by  an  in- 
dependent process.  Enough  has  now  been  said  to  shew  that  the  most 
natural  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  the  common  one  which  makes  it  a 
prophecy  of  moral  and  spiritual  conquests,  to  be  wrought  by  the  church 
over  the  nations,  and,  as  one  illustrious  exnmple,  by  the  Jews'  religion  over 
the  heathenism  of  many  countries,  not  excepting  the  literal  Ethiopia,  as  wo 
learn  from  Acts  viii.  27. 

15.  Venly  thou  art  a  Gud  hiding  fhysrlf,  0  (!od  of  hrarl,  the  Saviour! 
The  abrupt  transition  here  hns  much  perplexed  interpreters.  Vitringa  effects 
nothing  by  his  favourite  and  far-fetched  suppositicm  of  a  responsive  choir 
or  chonis.  Ewald  and  Luzzatto  suppose  the  words  of  the  Egj-ptian  cap- 
tives to  be  still  continued.  It  is  far  more  natural  to  take  the  verse  as  an 
apostrophe,  expressive  of  the  Prophet's  own  strong  feelings  in  contrasting 
what  God  had  done  and  would  yet  do,  the  darkness  of  the  present  with  the 
brightness  of  the  future.  If  these  things  are  to  be  hereafter,  then,  O  thou 
Saviour  of  thy  people,  thou  art  indeed  a  God  that  hides  himself,  that  is  to 


Ver.  1G-18.J  ISAIAH  XLV.  185 

Bay,  conceals  his  pnrposes  of  mercy  under  the  darkness  of  his  present  dia- 
peusations.  Let  it  be  observed,  however,  that  the  same  words,  which 
furnish  a  vehicle  of  personal  emotion  to  the  Prophet,  are  in  fact  a  formula 
of  wider  import,  and  contain  the  statement  of  a  general  truth.  Ewald 
assumes  two  distinct  propositions,  reading  the  last  clause  thus,  the  God  oj 
Israel  is  a  Saviour ;  which  is  perfectly  grammatical  and  agreeable  to  usage, 
but  unnecessary  here  and  undesirable,  because  it  detracts  from  the  simplicity 
and  unity  of  the  construction. 

16.  Thri/  arc  ashamed  and  also  confuunded  all  of  them  together,  they  are 
gone  into  confuHion  (or  away  in  confusion) — the  carvers  of  images.  Unless 
we  assume,  without  necessity  or  warrant,  an  abrupt  and  perfectly  capricious 
change  of  subject,  this  verse  must  contain  the  conclusion  of  the  process 
described  in  the  foregoing  context.  We  might,  therefore,  expect  to  find 
Eg}-pt,  Ethiopia,  and  Seba  introduced  again  by  name ;  but,  instead  of  these, 
the  sentence  closes  with  a  general  expression,  which  has  already  been 
referred  to  as  a  proof  that  the  war  in  question  is  a  spiritual  war,  and  that 
the  enemies  to  be  subdued  are  not  certain  nations  in  themselves  consi- 
dered, but  the  heathen  world,  the  vast  mixed  multitude  who  worship  idols. 
These  are  described  as  the  carvers  or  artificers  of  images,  which  strengthens 
the  conclusion  before  drawn,  that  the  smith  and  carpenter,  and  cook  and 
baker,  and  cultivator  of  chap.  xliv.  12-10,  are  one  and  the  same  person, 
viz.  the  idolatrous  devotee  himself. 

17.  Israel  is  saved  in  Jehovah  (with)  an  everlasting  salvation  (literally, 
salvation  of  ages  or  eternities)  ;  ye  shall  not  he  ashamed,  a7id  ye  shall  not  he 
confouyided  for  ever  (literally,  until  the  ages  of  eternity),  or  as  the  English 
Version  has  it,  ivorld  without  end.  This  is  the  counterpart  and  contrast 
to  the  threatening  in  the  verse  preceding,  upon  which  it  throws  some  light 
by  shewing  that  the  shame  and  confusion  which  awaits  the  idolater  is  not 
mere  wounded  pride  or  sense  of  disappointment,  but  the  loss  and  opposite 
of  that  salvation  which  is  promised  to  God's  people,  or  in  other  words, 
eternal  perdition.  Israel  is  saved  already,  i.  e.  his  salvation  is  secured, 
not  merely  through  the  Lord  but  in  him,  i.  c.  liy  virtue  of  an  intimate  and 
vital  union  with  him,  as  genuine  and  living  members  of  his  body.  The 
general  form  of  this  solemn  declaration,  and  the  eternity  again  and  again 
predicated  of  the  salvation  promised,  seem  to  shew  that  the  Israel  of  this 
text  and  of  others  like  it,  is  not  the  Jewish  people,  considered  simply  as 
an  ancient  nation,  but  the  Jewish  people  considered  as  the  church  of  God, 
a  body  which  has  never  ceased  and  never  will  cease  to  exist  and  claim  the 
promises. 

18.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  creator  of  the  heavens — he  is  God — the 
Jormer  of  the  earth  and  its  maker — he  estahlished  it — not  in  vain  (or  not  to 

he  empty)  did  he  create  it — to  dwell  in  (or  to  be  inhabited)  he  formed  it — / 
am  Jehovah,  and  there  is  none  hesvles.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  for 
believing  in  the  threatening  and  the  promise  of  the  two  preceding  verses, 
viz.  that  he  who  uttered  them  not  only  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
but  made  them  for  a  certain  purpose  which  must  be  accomplished.  The 
ouly  difficulty  of  construction  is  the  question  where  Jehovah's  words  begin, 
and  this  admits  of  several  diflerent  answers.  We  may  read,  Thus  saith 
Jehovah:  The  creator  of  the  heavens  is  God;  in  which  case  the  divine 
address  begins  with  a  formal  statement  of  the  argument  derived  from  the 
creation.  Again,  we  may  read,  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  The  creator  of  the 
heavens  is  the  God  who  formed  the  earth.  This  is  Vitringa's  explanation  of 
the  verse,  which  he  regards  as  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  that  the  heavens 


186  ISAIJJI XLV.  ;Ver.  19,  20. 

and  tho  earth  derive  their  orij^'iu  from  different  creators.  But  most  inter- 
preters suppose  the  bej,'inning  of  Jehovah's  own  words  to  be  miirked  by 
the  introduction  of  the  pronoun  of  the  tirst  person,  I  am  Jehovah,  and 
there  is  no  other.  All  thiit  precedes  is  then  to  be  regarded  as  a  description 
of  the  speaker,  including  two  parenthetical  propositions,  each  beginning 
with  the  pronoun  N"in  :  the  creator  of  the  heavens  [he  is  God),  the  former  of 
the  earth  and  its  maker  {he  established  it). — Some  understand  njl?^2  to  mean 
jyrcparcd  (or  fitted)  it,  i.  r.  for  man  to  dwell  in.  But  the  other  sense  is 
favoured  by  the  predominant  usage  of  the  verb,  and  by  the  analogy  of 
Ps.  cxix.  00.  The  common  version  of  the  next  clause,  he  created  it  not  in 
rain,  is  admissible,  but  less  expressive  than  the  more  specific  rendering, 
he  created  it  not  [to  he)  a  waste  (or  emjdy).  Grotius  understands  by  V^^"?* 
the  Holy  Laud,  and  by  thi'  whole  clause  that  God  would  not  let  it  remain 
uninhabited.  But  the  antithesis  with  heavens  makes  the  wider  sense  more 
natural,  in  which  the  more  restricted  one,  as  Hitzig  has  suggested,  may  be 
comprehended.  The  earth,  and  the  Holy  Land,  as  part  of  it,  was  made 
to  be  inhabited,  not  empty. — Yitringa's  distinctions  between  making, 
forming,  and  creating,  though  ingenious,  are  no  more  natural  or  necessary 
here  than  in  chap,  xliii.  7.  (See  above,  p.  150.)  In  the  last  clause 
Jehovah  is  emplo3'ed  as  a  descriptive  title,  and  is  really  equivalent  to  7N, 
•which  the  Prophet  uses  in  a  similar  connection  in  ver.  22  below. 

19.  Xof  in  secret  hare  I  spoken,  in  a  dark  place  of  the  earth  (or  in  a  place, 
to  wit,  a  land  af  darkness).  I  /tare  not  said  to  the  seed  of  Jacob,  In  rain 
seek  ye  me.  I  {am)  Jchorah,  speaking  truth,  declaring  rectitude  (or  right 
things).  The  doctrine  of  the  preceding  verse  is  no  new  revelation,  but  one 
long  ago  and  imiversally  made  known.  Vitringa,  Lowih,  EwaUl,  and  Umbreit 
suppose  an  allusion  to  the  mysterious  and  doubtful  responses  of  the  heathen 
oracles.  The  objections  of  Gesenius  are  of  no  more  weight  than  in  vers. 
1,  2,  8,  the  analogy  of  which  places  makes  it  not  improbable  that  such  an 
allusion  to  the  oracles  is  couched  under  the  general  te'rms  of  the  verse 
before  us. — Of  the  next  clause  there  are  several  distinct  interpretations. 
The  oldest  and  most  common  makes  it  mean  that  God  had  not  required  the 
people  to  consult  him  in  relation  to  futurity  without  obtaining  satisfactory 
responses.  According  to  Hit/.ig,  he  had  not  required  them  to  seek  him 
(t.  e.  serve  or  worship  him)  for  nothing,  or  without  rewnrd.  J.  D, 
^lichaelis  and  liUz/atto  give  a  local  sense  to  ^HD,  in  the  tvildcrncss,  which 
Hendewerk  explains  as  equivalent  to  /aru/ o/"rf«//i7JCss,  both  denoting  the 
heathen  world,  in  which  Jehovah  had  n(»t  taught  his  people  to  seek  him  or 
expect  resjtonscs  from  him. — liOwth  gives  D'"»L*"P  the  specific  sense  of 
direct  anstcers,  as  opposed  to  the  e(iuivocal  responses  of  the  oracles  ;  but 
this  is  hardly  justified  by  usage,  which  requires  both  this  word  and  tho 
parallel  expression  to  be  here  taken  in  the  sense  of  truth. 

20.  (lathrr  guurselres  and  come,  draw  near  together,  ge  escaped  of  the 
nations.  They  know  not,  those  carrying  the  wood,  their  graiot  image,  and 
praying  to  a  God  (who)  cannot  save.  In  the  first  clause  the  idolaters  are 
addressed  directly  ;  in  the  second  they  are  spoken  of  again  in  tlic  third 
person.'  The  challenge  or  summons  at  tho  beginning  is  precisely  similar 
to  that  in  chap.  xli.  21  and  xliii.  9.  Escaped  of  t lie  nations  has  been  vari- 
ously explained  to  mean  tho  Jews  who  had  escaped  from  the  oppression  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  the  Gentiles  who  had  escaped  from  the  dominion  of 
idolatry.  But  these  hist  would  scarcely  have  been  summoned  to  a  contest. 
On  the  whole,  it  seems  most  natural  to  understand  the  nations  who  sur- 
vived the  judgments  sent  by  God  upon  them.     The  Hebrew  phrase  is  in 


Ver.  21,  22.J  ISAIAH  XLT.  187 

itself  ambiguous,  the  noun  added  to  *Py?  sometimes  denoting  the  whole 
body,  out  of  which  a  remnimt  has  escaped,  sometimes  the  jwwer  from  which 
they  arc  delivered.  (Compare  Judges  xii.  4,  Ezra  vi.  9,  vii.  IG,  Obad.  xi., 
with  Jer.  xlv.  28,  Ezek.  xi.  8.)  The  predominant  usage  and  the  context  here 
decide  in  favour  of  the  first  interpretation.  Geseuius  and  Luzzato  both  apply 
the  phrase  to  the  conquests  of  Cyrus,  but  in  contrary  senses.  The  fii'st  re- 
gards it  as  describing  those  whom  he  should  spare,  the  other  those  whom  he 
should  conquer,  and  who  are  exhibited  as  fleeing  with  their  idols  on  their 
shoulders.  But  the  explanation  which  agrees  best  with  the  whole  connec- 
tion is  the  one  that  supposes  the  idolaters  still  left  {i.  e.  neither  converted 
nor  destroyed)  to  be  the  object  of  address.  If  there  are  any  still  absurd 
enough  to  carry  about  a  wooden  god,  and  pray  to  one  who  cannot  save, 
let  them  assemble  and  draw  near. — They  do  not  knoio  is  commonly  explained 
to  mean  they  have  no  Icnowledye ;  but  it  is  more  accordant  with  the  usage 
of  the  language  to  supply  a  specific  object.  They  do  not  know  it,  or,  they 
do  not  know  what  they  are  doing,  ther  are  not  conscious  of  their  o^vTi 
impiety  and  folly. — The  verse  contains  two  indirect  reflections  on  the  idols  : 
first,  that  they  are  wooden  ;  then,  that  they  are  lifeless  and  dependent  on 
theii"  worshippers  for  locomotion. 

21.  Briny  foruard  and  briny  near!  Yea,  let  them  consult  toyether.  ]Vho 
has  caused  this  to  be  heard  of  old,  since  then  declared  it?  Have  not  I  Je- 
Iwvah?  and  there  is  no  other  God  besides  me;  a  riyhteous  and  a  saviny  God, 
there  is  none  besides  me.  The  object  of  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause,  accord- 
ing to  Vitringa,  is  your  cause  or  your  aryuments,  as  in  chap.  xli.  21.  This, 
which  Geseuius  is  pleased  to  regard  as  an  ignorant  blunder  of  his  great 
predecessor,  has  nevertheless  commended  itself  to  the  judgment  of  most 
later  writers.  Geseuius  himself  explains  the  fii'st  clause  as  meaning  pro 
claim  it,  and  briny  them  near  [i.e.  the  heathen),  without  explaining  what 
is  to  be  proclaimed,  or  by  whom.  According  to  Yitringa's  exposition,  the 
idolaters  are  called  upon  to  state  their  case,  and  to  defend  it. — The  change 
of  person  in  the  next  clause  implies  that  they  are  unable  or  unwilling  to 
accept  the  challenge,  or  at  least  in  doubt  and  hesitation  with  respect  to  it. 
They  are  therefore  invited  to  deliberate  together,  or,  as  some  understand  it, 
to  take  counsel  of  those  wiser  than  themselves.  Instead  of  waiting  longer 
for  their  plea,  however,  he  presents  his  own,  in  the  common  form  of  an 
inteiTog  ition,  asking  who,  except  himself,  had  given  evidence  of  prescience 
by  explicitly  foretelling  events  still  far  distant,  and  of  saviug  power  by 
delivering  his  people  from  calamity  and  bondage. — TN^D,  although  it  strictly 
has  relation  to  a  determinate  past  time,  seems  here  to  be  employed  inde- 
finitely, as  an  equivalent  to  Q^Hi^P. — Hare  not  I  Jehovah,  ami  there  is  no 
other  God  besides  me?  is  a  Hebrew  idiom  equivalent  to  the  English  question. 
Have  not  I,  besides  uhom  there  is  no  other  God/ 

22.  Turn  unto  me  a)id  be  »ared,  all  ye  ends  of  the  eart]i,f()r  I  am  God, 
and  there  is  none  besides.  From  the  preceding  declarations,  it  might  seem 
to  follow  that  the  Gentile  world  had  nothing  to  expect  but  the  perdition 
thi-eatened  in  ver.  15.  But  now  the  Prophet  brings  to  view  a  gracious 
alternative,  inviting  them  to  choose  between  destruction  and  submission, 
and  shewing  that  the  drift  of  the  foregoing  argument  was  not  to  drive  the 
heathen  to  despair,  but  to  shut  them  up  to  the  necessity  of  seeking  safety 
in  the  favour  of  the  one  true  God,  whose  exclusive  deity  is  expressly  made 
the  ground  of  the  exhortation. — -IJ?  does  not  correspond  exactly  to  the 
English  look;  but  denotes  the  act  of  turniny  round  in  order  to  look  in  a 
difl'erent  direction.     The  text  therefore  bears  a  strong  analog}'  to  those  in 


188  ISAIAH  XLV.  [Veb.  23,  24. 

wliich  the  hoathen,  when  onliKhtoned,  are  described  as  turuiufj  from  their 
i.lols  unto  God.  (See  1  Tliess.  i.  U;  Acts  xiv.  15,  xv.  19.) — The  ends  of 
the  earth  is  a  phrase  inclusive  of  all  nations,  and  is  fr(<iucntly  employed  in 
reference  to  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  (See  Ps.  xxii.  28,  Ixxii.  8 ; 
Zech.  ix.  10.)  De  Wette's  version,  let  ymnsehes  be  sated,  appears  to  he  a 
needless  refinement  on  the  simple  meanin}^  of  the  passive. — The  question, 
whether  Christ  is  to  he  rej^arded  as  the  speaker  in  this  passage,  is  of  little 
exegetical  importance.  To  us,  who  know  that  it  is  onh'  through  him  that 
the  Father  saves,  this  supposition  appears  altogether  natural;  hut  it  does 
not  follow  that  any  such  impression  would  be  made,  or  was  intended  to  be 
made,  upon  an  ancient  reader. 

2.'J.  Jfi/  vvjaelf  I  hare  suoru ;  the  uord  is  gone  out  of  a  mouth  of  righteoux- 
iteax,  and  shall  not  return,  that  unto  me  shall  how  every  hnee,  sliall  swear  erenj 
tomjue.  The  form  of  the  divine  oath  elsewhere  used  is  bg  mg  life,  or  ^.s  / 
live.  (Num.  xiv.  21,  28;  Deut.  xxxii.  40.)  Hence  Paul,  in  his  quotation 
of  this  text  (Horn.  xiv.  11),  uses  the  formula,  Zi  iyw,  which  may  be 
regarded  as  an  accurate  paraphrase,  though  not  as  a  rigorous  translation. 
— The  construction  of  the  words  13'?  i^i^^V  has  pr^rplexed  interjireters. 
Jerome  arbitrarily  transposes  them,  and  translates  the  phrase  as  if  it  were 
'"•i^lV  '^^'^.  word  of  righteousness,  liosenmiiller  gains  the  same  end  by  sup- 
posing an  unusual  combination,  righteousness-word,  like  pT)r'"l)^J^  in  Ps. 
xiv.  5.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  make  ni?TV  the  subject  of  the  verb  KV*, 
notwithstanding  the  diversity  of  gender,  and  regard  *<?)  as  equivalent  to 
i*^  lv"?f.  'Truth  has  gone  out  of  mg  mouth,  a  word  which  shall  not  return. 
The  simplest  construction,  although  none  of  the  later  writers  seem  to  have 
adopted  it,  is  that  proposed  by  J,  D.  Michaelis,  who  regards  *S  as  the  con- 
struct form  of  np  without  a  suflix,  and  '"'R7V  J^s  a  genitive  dependent  on  it. 
the  mouth  of  righteousness  or  truth  [aus  dem  uiitriigliehen  Muiule). — A  word, 
i.e.  a  promise  or  a  prophecy,  is  said  in  Hebrew  to  return  when  it  is 
cancelled  or  recalled.  (See  Isaiah  Iv.  11.)  The  kneeling  and  swearing 
in  the  last  clause  are  acts  of  homage,  fealty,  or  allegiance,  which  usually 
went  together  (1  Kings  xix.  18),  and  involved  a  solemn  recognition  of  the 
sovereignty  of  him  to  whom  they  were  tendered.  This  verse  affords 
a  clear  illustration  of  the  difierenco  between  the  act  of  swearing  to 
and  ;<wearing  bg  another.  (Compare  chap.  xix.  18,  vol.  i.  p.  85(5. 
— This  text  is  twice  applied  by  Paul  to  Christ  (Rom.  xiv.  11 ;  Phil.  ii.  10), 
in  proof  of  his  regal  and  judicial  sovereignty.  It  does  not  necessarily  pre- 
dict that  all  shall  be  converted  to  him,  since  the  terms  are  such  as  to  in- 
clude both  a  voluntary  and  a  compulson,-  submission,  and  in  one  of  these 
ways  all,  without  exception,  shall  yet  recognize  him  as  their  rightful 
sovereign. 

21.  Onlg  in  Jehorah  have  I,  nags  he,  righteousness  and  strength;  unto  him 
shall  he  come,  and  all  that  were  ineensed  (or  inflamed)  at  him  shall  be 
ashamed.  Josej)h  Kimchi  takes  the  first  word.s  as  an  oath,  }V.s-,  bg  Je- 
horah I  David  Kimchi  gives  the  "JlNt  its  proper  meaning,  and  connects  the 
clause  with  the  last  words  of  the  foregoing  verse. — Krerg  tongue  shall  swear 
[hut)  onlg  bg  Jehorah.  Most  interpreters  suppose  a  sentence  to  begin  with 
this  verse,  and  njn*3  to  mean  in  Jihovah.  Thcv  diller  \ct\  much  among 
llK-mselves,  however,  as  to  the  meaning  of  tlie  words  ""PN  v.  Vitringa, 
Kwald,  and  some  others,  render  the  phrase  said  to  me,  but  williout  satis- 
factorily shewing  its  relation  to  the  context.  The  most  usual  construction 
is,  one  sags  oj  me,  which  is  grammatical,   but  seems  to  make  the  clause 


Ver.  25.]  ISAIAH  XLVI.  189 

unmeaning,  or  at  least  superfluous.  Perhaps  the  best  constrnction  is  De 
Dieu's,  who  insuhxtes  "TpN,  and  understands  it  to  mean  snijs  one  or  says  lie, 
while  he  connects  the  following  words  with  y,  as  meaning  are  to  me,  the 
only  Hebrew  phrase  corresponding  to  /  liare.  In  cither  case  the  general 
meaning  evidently  is,  that  God  alone  can  justify  or  give  protection. 
Yitringa's  explanation  of  iV  as  meaning  (jmce,  is  as  groundless  as  the 
similar  construction  of  i^i^^V  ^y  the  modern  Germans. — ^The  Masoretic  iu- 
tcrpunction  refers  the  singular  verb  N'i^J  and  the  plural  It.'Q':  to  the  same 
subject,  namely,  that  which  follows.  But  the  difference  of  number  seems 
designed  to  indicate  a  diHerence  of  subject,  corresponding  to  the  kinds  of 
submission  hinted  at  in  ver.  23.  The  singular  NHJ  may  naturally  have  a 
common  subject  with  the  singular  ")'?X,  viz.,  the  "every  one"  who  should 
eventually  bow  the  knee  and  swear  allegiance  to  Jehovah,  while  the  plural 
•li^'T  may  be  regularly  construed  with  the  plural  2''"?nV  Jarchi  explains 
the  whole  of  the  last  clause  as  describing  the  repentance  of  Jehovah's 
enemies ;  but  this  is  really  the  meaning  only  of  NU'^  Vlj;,  while  the  rest 
describes  the  final  and  desperate  confusion  of  incorrigible  sinners,  as  in 
ver.  IG.  On  the  phrase  N13^  Viy  compare  chap.  xix.  22,  and  on  12  D^PIJ 
chap.  xli.  22,  and  Cant.  i.  6. 

25.  In  Jehovah  shall  be  justified  and  boast  themselres  {or  (jlori/)  all  the  seed 
of  Israel.  This  closing  promise  is  restricted  by  Jarchi,  in  the  genuine 
spirit  of  Rabbinism,  to  the  literal  or  natural  descendants  of  Jacob;  but  this 
is  less  surprising  when  we  know  that  he  actually  violates  the  syntax  of  the 
preceding  verse  in  order  to  bring  '^J*  and  V  together  in  the  sense  of  only  to 
me,  the  speaker  being  Israel !  So  far  is  this  from  being  the  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  verse,  that  it  is  really  intended  to  wind  up  the  previous 
addresses  to  the  Gentiles  with  a  solemn  declaration  of  their  true  relation 
to  the  chosen  people,  as  composed  of  those  who  really  believed  and  feared 
God,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles.  This  principle  was  recognised  in  every 
admission  of  a  proselyte  to  the  communion  of  the  ancient  church,  and  at 
the  change  of  dispensations  it  is  clearly  and  repeatedly  asserted  as  a  funda- 
mental law  of  Christ's  kingdom  under  every  variety  of  form.  (See  Rom.  x. 
12;  Gal.  iii.  28,  29;  Col.  iii.  11.) 


CHAPTER  XLVI. 

Interpreters  are  strangely  divided  in  opinion  as  to  the  connection  of 
this  chapter  with  the  context.  The  arbitrary  and  precarious  nature  of  their 
judgments  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact,  that  Ewald  separates  the  first  two 
verses  from  the  body  of  the  chapter  and  connects  them  with  the  one  before 
it,  while  Hendewerk,  on  the  other  hand,  commences  a  new  *'  cycle"  with  the 
first  verse  of  this  chapter,  and  Knobel  dogmatically  represents  it  as  an  isolated 
composition,  unconnected  either  with  what  goes  before  or  follows.  Even  the 
older  writei's,  who  maintain  the  continuity  of  the  discourse,  appear  to  look 
upon  the  order  of  its  parts  as  being  not  so  much  an  organic  articulation  as  a 
mere  mechanical  juxtaposition.  They  are  therefore  obliged  to  assume  abrupt 
transitions,  which,  instead  of  explaining  anything  else,  need  to  be  explained 
themselves. 

All  this  confusion  is  the  fruit  of  the  eiToneous  exegetical  hypothesis,  that 
the  main  subject  and  occasion  of  these  later  prophecies  is  the  Babylonish 
exile  and  the  liberation  from  it,  and  that  with  these  the  other  topics  must  be 
violently  brought  into  connection  by  assuming  a  sufiiciency  of  types  and 


190  ISAIAH  XLVL  [Ver.  1. 

double  senses,  or  by  charging  the  whole  discourse  with  incoherence.  Equally 
false,  hut  far  less  extensive  in  its  influence,  is  the  assumption  that  the  whole 
relates  to  Christ  and  to  the  new  dispensation,  so  that  even  what  is  said  of 
Babylon  and  Cyrus  must  be  metaphorically  understood.  Common  to  both 
hypotheses  is  the  arbitrarv-  and  exclusive  application  of  the  most  compre- 
hensive langua^'e  to  a  part  of  what  it  really  expresses,  and  a  distorted  view 
of  the  Prophet's  themes  considered  in  their  mutual  relations  and  connections. 
The  whole  becomes  perspicuous,  continuous,  and  orderly,  as  soon  as  wo 
admit  what  has  been  already  proved  to  bo  the  true  hypothesis,  viz.  that  the 
great  theme  of  these  propliecics  is  God's  designs  and  dealings  with  the 
church  and  with  the  world,  and  that  the  specific  predictions  which  are  intro- 
duced are  introduced  as  parts  or  as  illustrations  of  this  one  great  argument. 
By  thus  reversing  the  preposterous  relation  of  the  principal  elements  of  the 
discourse,  and  restoring  each  to  its  legitimate  position,  the  connection  be- 
comes clear  and  the  aiTangcment  easy. 

In  confirmation  of  the  general  threats  and  promises  with  which  chap.  xlv. 
is  wound  up,  the  Prophet  now  exhibits  the  particular  case  of  the  Babylonian 
idols,  as  a  single  instance  chosen  from  the  whole  range  of  past  and  futnre 
history.  They  are  described  as  fallen  and  gone  into  captivity,  wholly  unable 
to  protect  their  worshippers  or  save  themselves,  vers.  1,  2.  With  these  he 
then  contrasts  Jehovah's  constant  care  of  Israel  in  time  past  and  in  time  to 
come,  vers.  3,  4.  The  contrast  is  carried  out  by  another  description  of  the 
origin  and  impotence  of  idols,  vers.  5-7,  and  another  assertion  of  Jehovah's 
sole  divinity,  as  proved  by  his  knowledge  and  control  of  the  future,  and  by 
the  raising  up  of  Cjtus  in  particular,  vers.  8-11.  This  brings  him  back  to 
the  same  solemn  warning  of  approaching  judgments,  and  the  same  alternative 
of  life  or  death,  with  which  the  foregoing  chapter  closes,  vers.  12,  13. 

1.  liel  in  hatred  doun,  Xchu  ntooping ;  their  imaged  are  (eonsiffned)  to  the 
beasts  and  to  the  cattle.  Your  burdenx  are  packed  up  {as)  a  toad  to  the  xceary 
{beast).  The  connection  with  what  goes  before  may  be  indicated  thus  : 
see  for  example  the  fate  of  the  Babylonian  idols.  Of  these  two  are  men- 
tioned, either  as  arbitrary  sample?,  or  as  chief  divinities.  To  these  names, 
or  rather  to  the  subject  of  Babylonian  mythologv-,  Gosenius  devotes  an  ex- 
cursus or  appendix  of  thirty  pages,  the  results  of  which  are  given  in  his 
Thesaurus  and  Lexicon.  He  connects  Bel  etyniologically  with  the  Hebrew 
TiV?,  and  Ftho  with  t<3J  (><*??),  the  two  corresponding  to  the  Zeus  and 
Hermes  of  the  Greek  mythology,  or  rnthcr  to  the  planets  Jupiter  and  !Mer- 
cnry.  The  dignity  of  these  two  imaginary  deities  among  the  Babylonians 
may  bo  learned  from  the  extent  to  which  these  names  enter  into  the  com- 
position of  the  names  of  men,  both  in  sacred  and  profane  history.  Such 
ftre  Belshazzar.  Belteshazzar,  Belesys,  Nebuchadnezzar,  Nebuzaradan, 
Nabopolassar,  Nabonned,  I'tc.  Beyond  this  nothing  more  is  needed  for 
the  right  interpretation  of  Uie  passage,  where  the  names  are  simply  used  to 
represent  the  Babylonian  gods  collectively. — The  verb  D^p  occurs  only 
here.  The  Septungint  renders  the  two,  fallen  and  broken  ;  the  Vulgate 
gives  the  latter  sense  to  both.  But  VTiS  is  the  common  tenn  for  stooping, 
bowing,  especially  in  death  (Judges  v.  27;  2  Kings  ix.  21;  Ps.  xx.  0); 
and  that  the  other  is  substantially  s^-nonymous,  may  be  inferred  not  only 
from  the  parallelism,  but  from  the  analog}'  of  the  derivative  noun  D^i?,  a 
hook,  a  tache,  as  being  car\-ed  or  bent.  Although  not  essential  to  the 
general  meaning,  it  is  best  to  give  the  praeter  and  the  participle  their  dis- 
tinctive senpe,  as  meaning  strictly  that  the  one  has  I'alUn  and  the  otlier  is 
now  falling,  in  strict  accord;uicc  with  Isaiah's  practice,  in  descriptive  passages, 


Ver.  2.]  ISAIAH  XLVL  191 

of  hun-ying  the  I'eader  in  mcdiiis  res,  of  which  wc  have  already  had  repeated 
instances. — The  pronoun  in  their  imaf/es  might  be  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
Babylonians,  though  not  expressly  mentioned ;  but  as  these  are  immediately 
addressed  in  the  second  person,  it  is  best  to  understand  the  pronoun  as  refer- 
ing  to  Bel  and  Nebo,  who,  as  heavenly  bodies  or  imaginary  deities,  are 
then  distinguished  from  the  images  which  represented  them  in  the  vulgar 
worship.  The  suggestion  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  there  may  be  an  allusion 
to  some  actual  decay  of  the  metallic  idols  in  the  shrines  of  J^abylon,  is  incon- 
sistent with  what  follows  in  relation  to  their  going  into  exile. — The  Sep- 
tuagint,  the  Targum,  and  Jerome,  seem  to  understand  the  next  clause  as 
meaning  that  their  images  become  beasts,  which  is  scarcel}'  intelligible. 
Most  writers  follow  Kimchi  and  De  Dicu  in  supplying  ^<i^*D  from  the  other 
clause,  they  are  (a  hurden)  to  the  beauts,  &c.  But  this  assumes  a  very 
harsh  ellipsis  and  is  wholly  unnecessary,  since  usage  allows  ?  -Vn  to  be 
taken  in  the  sense  of  they  are  to,  i.  e.  they  now  belong  to,  or  are  abandoned 
and  consigned  to.  The  common  version,  on  the  beasts,  is  too  paraphras- 
tical.  Kimchi  supposes  n*n  and  ^''PD^  to  be  used  in  their  distinctive  sense 
of  wild  beasts  and  domesticated  cattle,  understanding  by  the  latter,  common 
beasts  of  burden,  by  the  former  camels,  elephants,  &c.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
imagines  that  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  m^'thological  use  of 
wild  beasts,  such  as  the  lions  of  Cj'bele,  &c.  Most  interpreters  re- 
gard the  words  as  simple  equivalents,  or  at  the  most  as  merely  distin- 
guishing oxen,  asses,  mules,  &c.,  from  camels,  dromedaries,  and  perhaps 
horses. — ni^^'^  is  properly  a  passive  participle  used  as  a  noun  and  meaning 
your  carried  things  (in  old  English,  carriages),  the  things  which  you  have 
been  accustomed  to  carry  in  processions  or  from  place  to  place,  but  which 
are  now  to  be  carried  in  a  very  difierent  manner,  on  the  backs  of  animals, 
as  spoil  or  captives.  niD-IDy  properly  means  lifted  up  in  order  to  be  car- 
ried, but  may  here  be  rendered  packed  or  loaded,  though  this  last  word 
is  ambiguous. — ^<t^•0  does  not  necessarily  denote  a  heavy  load,  but  simply 
that  they  are  a  load,  i.  e.  something  to  be  carried.  The  idea  of  weight 
is  suggested  by  the  following  word,  which  the  Vulgate  rendei's  as  an 
abstract  meaning  weariness  {usque  ad  lassilwlinem),  but  which  is  pi'operly 
a  feminine  adjective  agi'eeing  with  n*n  or  HOn^  understood. 

2.  They  stoop,  they  bow  toyeth'r;  they  caniiof  save  the  load;  themselves  are 
gone  into  captivi'y.  The  first  clause  may  mean  that  they  are  now  both 
fallen  ;  or  toycther  may  have  reference  to  the  other  gods  of  Babylon,  so 
as  to  mean  that  not  only  Eel  and  Nebo,  but  all  the  rest  are  fallen. — The 
last  member  of  the  first  clause  has  been  variously  explained.  Gesenius 
is  disposed  to  make  N^'?  an  abstract  meaning  the  carrying,  a  sense  not 
worth  obtaining  by  so  harsh  a  supposition.  The  Vulgate  arbitrarily  re- 
verses the  meaning,  and  instead  of  the  thing  borne  understands  the  bearer 
{non  potuerunt  salvare  portantem).  Of  those  who  adhere  to  the  strict  sense, 
hnid  or  burden,  some  understand  by  it  the  Babylonian  state  or  empire, 
which  ought  to  have  been  borne  or  sustained  by  its  tutelary  gods.  But  the 
most  satisfactory  interpretation  is  the  one  which  gives  the  word  the  same 
sense  as  in  ver.  1,  and  applies  it  to  the  images  with  which  the  beasts  were 
charged  or  laden.  These  are  then  to  be  considered  as  distinguished  by  the 
WTiter  from  the  gods  which  they  represented.  Bel  and  Nebo  are  unable  to 
rescue  their  own  images.  This  agi'ees  well  with  the  remainder  of  the  sen- 
tence, themselves  are  gone  (or  literally  their  self  is  gone)  into  captivity. 
This  is  the  only  way  in  which  the  reflexive  pronoun  could  be  made  em- 
phatic here  without  an  awkward  circumlocution.     There  is  no  need,  there- 


192  ISAIAH  XLVI.  [Veb.  S,  4. 

fore,  of  explaining  CL"??  to  mean  their  auul,  t.  e.  the  animating  principle  or 
spirit  by  which  the  imago  was  supposed  to  be  inhabited  ;  much  less  their 
desire,  i.  e.  the  darling  idols  of  the  heathen,  like  DH'^^ori  in  chap.  xliv.  9. 
The  antithesis  is  really  between  the  material  images  of  I3el  and  Nebo  and 
and  thivuiches,  so  fur  as  they  had  any  real  existence.  The  whole  god,  soul 
and  body,  all  that  there  was  of  him,  was  gone  into  captivity.  The  idea  of 
the  conquest  and  captivity  of  tutelar}-  gods  was  common  in  the  ancient 
East,  and  is  alluded  to,  besides  this  place,  in  Jer.  xlviii.  7,  xlix.  3  ;  Hosea 
X.  5,  G  ;  Dan.  xi.  8,  lo  which  may  be  added  1  Sam.  v.  1. — Whether  the 
Prophet  hi-re  refers  to  an  actual  event  or  an  ideal  one,  and  how  the  former 
supposition  may  be  reconciled  with  the  statement  of  Herodotus  and  Dio- 
dorus,  that  the  great  image  of  Bel  at  Babylon  was  not  destroyed  until  tho 
time  of  Xerxes,  are  questions  growing  out  of  tho  erroneous  supposition  that 
the  passage  has  exclusive  reference  to  the  conquest  by  Cyrus  ;  whereas  it 
mav  include  the  whole  series  of  events  which  resulted  in  the  final  down- 
fall of  the  Babylonian  idol  worship.     (Sec  voL  i.  p.  20G.) 

3.  Hearken  unto  me,  0  house  of  Jacob,  and  all  ilie  remnant  of  th«  house  of 
Israel,  those  borne  from  the  belli/,  those  carried  from  the  womb.  By  the  rem- 
nant of  the  house  of  Israel  Kimchi  understands  the  remains  of  the  ten  tribes 
who  were  in  exile  ;  but  this  is  a  gratuitous  restriction  of  the  meaning.  The 
participles  rendered  home  and  carried  are  the  masculine  forms  of  those  used 
in  ver.  1.  This  repetition  analogous  to  that  in  chap.  xlii.  2,  8,  is  intended 
to  suggest  a  contrast  between  the  failure  of  the  idols  to  protect  their  wor- 
shippers and  God's  incessant  care  of  his  own  people.  The  gods  of  the 
heathen  had  to  be  borne  by  them  ;  but  Jehovah  was  himst- If  the  bearer 
of  his  followers.  And  this  was  no  new  thing,  but  coeval  with  their  na- 
tional existence.  The  specific  reference  to  Kg}pt  or  the  exodus  is  no 
more  necessary  here  than  in  chaps,  xliv.  2,  24,  xlviii.  8.  The  carrying 
meant  is  that  of  children  by  the  nurse  or  parent.  The  same  comparison  is 
frequent  elsewhere.  (See  Num.  xi.  12,  Deut.  i.  31,  Exod.  xix.  4,  Isa. 
Ixiii.  9,  and  compare  Deut.  xxxii.  11,  12,  Hosea  xi.  8,  Isa.  xl.  11.) — For 
Icily  and  woml  Noyes,  by  way  of  euphemistic  variation,  substitutes  birlh 
and  earliest  breath. — 1^3  'SP  is  identicid  with  |C3P  chap.  xliv.  24.  The 
same  fonu  of  the  particle  occurs  in  Job.  xx.  4,  and  Ps.  xl.  1!». 

4.  The  figure  of  an  infant  and  its  nurse  was  not  sufficient  to  express  the 
whole  extent  of  God's  fidelity  and  tenderness  to  Israel.  The  first  of  these 
relations  is  necessarily  restricted  to  the  earHest  period  of  life,  but  God's 
protection  is  continued  without  limit.  And  to  old  mje  I  am  lie  (i.  e.  tho 
same),  and  to  (jraij  hair  I  uill  bear  [you)  ;  I  /irtiv  done  it  </;»(/  /  will  carnj 
and  I  uill  hear  and  save  (you).  Hitzig  supposes  tliis  to  mean  that  Israel 
was  already  old,  as  in  chap,  xlvii.  G ;  but  others  much  more  probably 
refer  it  to  the  future,  and  regard  the  expressions  as  indefinite.  As  I 
have  done  in  time  past,  so  I  will  do  hereafter.  The  general  analogy 
between  the  life  of  individuals  and  that  of  nations  is  sufficiently  obvious, 
and  is  finely  expressed  by  Florus  in  his  division  of  the  Roman  History 
into  tho  periods  of  childhood,  youth,  manhood,  and  old  age.  But  Vit- 
ringa  mars  the  beautiful  analogy  when  he  undertakes  to  measure  off  tho 
periods  in  the  history  of  Israel  from  his  birth  in  Egypt,  through  his 
infanrv  in  the  desrrt,  his  youth  under  tho  Judges,  his  manhood  until 
Jolham,  his  old  ago  until  Alexander,  and  his  ijratj  hairs,  or  extreme  old 
age,  beyond  that  piriod. — The  reference  of  these  terms  to  God  himself  as 
the  Ancient  of  Days  (Dan.  vii.  9),  is  too  absurd  to  need  refutation  or  admit 
of  it. 


Ver.  5-8. j  ISAIAH  XLVl.  198 

5.  2o  whom  will  ye  liken  me  and  equal  and  compare  me,  that  we  may  he 
(literally  and  ue  shall  be)  like?  This  is  an  indirect  conclusion  from  the 
contrast  in  the  foregoing  context.  If  such  be  the  power  of  idols,  and 
such  that  of  Jehovah,  to  whom  will  ye  compare  him  ?  The  form  of  ex- 
pression is  like  that  in  chap.  xl.  18,  25. 

G.  The  prodigals  (or  lavish  ones)  will  weigh  gold  from  the  bag,  and  silver 
tvith  the  rod;  they  will  hire  a  gilder,  and  he  will  make  it  a  god;  they  will, 
bow  down,  yea,  they  will  fall  prostrate.  Dvt  is  commonly  explained  as  a 
participle  in  the  sense  oi pouring  oat  or  favishing  ;  but  thus  understood  it 
is  of  difficult  construction.  Vitringa  resolves  it  into  D''?T  DH  ;  but  this  is 
contran,'  to  usage.  If  we  make  it  agree  with  the  subject  of  the  verbs  in 
ver.  5  (i/e  who  jioiir  out,  Sec),  we  must  suppose  an  abrupt  change  of  person 
in  the  next  clause.  The  first  construction  above  given  is  the  one  proposed 
by  Schmidius,  who  makes  Dv^'^  the  subject  of  the  verb  •17p?J'.\  We  may 
then  explain  D*3p  either  as  meaning  taken  out  of  the  purse,  or  in  reference 
to  the  bag  of  weights,  in  which  sense  it  is  used  in  Deut  xxv.  13  ;  Micah 
vi.  11.  n^i^  is  properly  a  reed,  then  any  rod  or  bar,  such  as  the  shaft  of  a 
candlestick  (Exod.  xxv.  31),  and  here  the  beam  of  a  balance,  or  the  gra- 
duated rod  of  a  steelyard. — The  verse  has  reference  to  the  wealthier  class 
of  idol-worshippers. 

7.  They  will  lift  him  on  the  shoulder,  they  will  carry  him,  they  icill  set 
him  in  his  place,  and  he  will  stand  {there),  from  his  place  he  will  not  move  ; 
yes,  one  will  cry  to  him,  and  he  will  not  answer  ;  from  his  distress  he  ivill  (or 
can)  not  save  him.  The  idol  is  not  only  the  work  of  man's  hands,  but 
intirely  dependent  on  him  for  the  slightest  motion.  No  wonder,  therefore, 
that  he  cannot  hear  the  prayers  of  his  worshippers,  much  less  grant  them 
the  deliverance  and  protection  which  they  need. 

8.  liemcmher  this  and  shew  yourselves  men  ;  bring  it  home,  ye  apostates,  to 
(ymir)  mind  or  (heart). — By  this  Jarchi  understands  what  follows ;  but  it 
rather  means  what  goes  before,  viz.,  the  proof  just  given  of  the  impotence 
of  idols,  the  worshippers  of  which,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  are  addressed 
in  this  verse  as  apostates  or  rebels  against  God.  The  restriction  of  the 
term  to  apostate  Jews  is  perfectly  gratuitous. — The  verb  -It^'J^'Nrin  is  a  acrct^ 
Xiyoiji,i\iov,  and  admits  of  several  ditierent  explanations.  Joseph  Kimchi 
derived  it  from  *?,  five,  and  explained  it  to  mean,  "be  inflamed  or  red- 
dened," i.e.  blush.  So  the  Vulgate,  confundamini.  The  Targum  and 
Jarchi  understand  it  to  mean  "  fortify  or  strengthen  yourselves,"  and  con- 
nect it  with  D''t;"i^'*?,/noK^(i<ions  (chap.  xvi.  7).  Bocbart  derives  it  from 
^"'^,  a  man,  and  identifies  it  with  the  avhi^ieh  of  1  Cor.  xvi.  13.  Vitringa 
oltjects  that  the  apostates  would  not  be  exhorted  to  fortif^y  themselves  ia 
unbelief.  Hitzig  replies  that  the  clauses  are  addressed  to  difierent  parties, 
which  is  wholly  arbitrary.  Gesenius  removes  the  objection  by  giving  to 
the  verb  the  sense  of  acting  rationally,  not  like  children  (1  Cor.  xiv.  20), 
or  as  Kirachi  says,  like  beasts  which  have  neither  judgment  nor  considera- 
tion. Vitringa  objects,  moreover,  that  the  form  would  be  -It^'p'SJ^n  ;  Hitzig 
more  plausibly,  that  it  would  be  •1^"?^^riri  from  the  acknowledged  root  '^'^^  ; 
but  there  is  no  absurdity  in  supposing  that  the  verbal  form  was  derived 
from  the  contracted  t"X  which  is  in  common  use. — As  an  excgetical  mon- 
strosity it  may  be  stated  here  that  Paulus  explains  the  Hebrew  word  by  the 

Arabic  one       \  meaning  to  drive  camels  by  the  use  of  the  syllable  is  '.   is  ! 


194  ISAlAll  XLVI.  ,Veb.  0-11. 

9,  10.  Rnuemher  former  things  of  old  [or  from  eternity),  for  I  am  the 
Mighty  and  there  is  no  other,  iiod  and  there  is  none  like!  me,  declaring  front 
the  first  the  last,  and  from  aneitui  time  the  tilings  which  are  not  [yet)  done 
(or  made),  saying,  My  counsel  shall  stand  and  all  my  pleasure  I  will  do.  Ho 
calls  upon  them  to  consider  the  proofs  of  bis  exclusive  deity,  nfl'orded  not 
only  by  tlio  nullity  of  all  conflicting'  claims,  but  by  tbe  fact  of  bis  infallible 
foreknowledge,  as  attested  by  tbe  actual  prediction  of  events  long  before  their 
occurrence. — Instead  of /or  some  read  that,  on  tbe  ground  tbat  tbe  thing  to 
bo  believed  was  his  divinity  ;  the  former  things  being  cited  merely  as  the 
proofs  of  it. —  Declaring  the  last  for  the  tu-st,  or  tbe  end  from  the  beginning, 
means  declaring  the  whole  scries  of  events  included  between  these  extremes. 
ri*"?n*<  docs  not  strictly  mean  the  end  as  opposed  to  the  beginning,  but  the 
latter  part  of  anything  as  opposed  to  tbe  preceding  part,  whatever  the  ex- 
tent of  either  of  their  relative  proportions.  Hence  it  often  means  futurity, 
both  absolute  and  relative,  without  necessarily  defining  the  terminus  a  quo 
from  which  it  is  to  be  computed. — My  counsel  shall  stand,  t.  e.  my  purpose 
shall  bo  executed.  (Sec  chap.  vii.  7,  viii.  10,  xiv.  24,  xUv.  2G.)  All  the 
modem  wTiters  seem  to  be  agi-eed  in  giving  *y?J!l  tbe  sense  of  my  will  or 
pleasure,  although  not  at  all  more  natural  or  necessaiy  here  than  in  cbap. 
xliv.  28,  where  it  is  made  a  proof  of  later  date,  and  of  a  diction  diflerent 
from  that  of  Isaiah. — All  the  expressions  of  the  ninth  verse  have  occurred 
before  in  different  combinations.  (See  chap.  xlii.  14,  xliii.  18,  xlv.  21, 
&c.}  According  to  Maurer,  former  things  here  means /on/ier  events,  as 
in  chap,  xliii.  18,  xlviii.  8,  not  former  predictions,  as  in  chap.  xlii.  9, 
xliii.  9. 

1 1 .  Calling  from  the  east  a  bird  of  prey,  from  a  land  of  distance  the  man 
of  his  counsel ;  I  have  both  said  and  will  also  bring  it  to  pass,  I  have  formed 
(the  plan)  and  will  also  do  it.  From  the  general  assertion  of  his  provi- 
dence and  power,  he  now  posses  to  that  specific  proof  of  it  which  has  so 
frequently  been  urged  before, •^•iz.,  the  raising  up  of  Cyrns  ;  but  without  tho 
mention  of  his  name  in  this  case,  and  with  an  indefiuiteness  of  express"on 
which  is  perfectly  well  suited  to  the  general  analogy  of  prophecy,  as  well  as 
to  the  views  already  taken  in  the  exposition  of  chap.  xliv.  28.  (See  above, 
p.  175). — Cidling  includes  prediction  and  efficiency,  not  only  announcing 
but  calling  into  being.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  give  to  I3*y  licre  tho 
specific  sense  of  eagle,  some  on  account  of  a  supposed  aflluity  between  tho 
Hebrew  name  and  the  Greek  aiToi,  others  because  of  the  frequent  similar 
allusions  to  the  eagle  elsewhere  (see  Jer.  xlix.  22  ;  Ezek.  xvii.  2,  8,  12  ; 
comp.  Isaiah  xl.  81),  others  supposing  a  reference  to  the  Persian  ensign. 
But  tbe  very  vagueness  of  the  usual  sense  entitles  it  to  tho  preference  for 
reasons  just  suggested. — The  point  of  comparison  is  not  mere  swiftness  or 
rapidity  of  conquest  (Hosea  viii.  1,  Hab.  i.  H,  Jer.  xlviii.  80).  but  rapacity 
and  fierceness.  Knobel  arbitrarily  assumes  that  Media  and  Persia  are 
distinctly  and  specifically  meant  by  tbe  east  and  tho  far  country,  whereas 
the  language  is  designedly  indefinite. — Man  (f  his  counsel  does  not  mean 
his  counsellor,  as  it  does  in  chap.  xl.  13,  but  either  the  executor  of  his 
purpose,  or  the  agent  himself  purposed,  ».  e.  foreordained  by  God.  Tbe 
marginal  reading  (my  counsel)  probably  arose  from  the  seeming  harshness 
of  tbe  enallage  jtersona  ;  but  this  is  a  figure  much  too  frequent  in  Isaiah  to 
require  elimination  by  a  change  of  text.  It  is  as  if  he  had  said,  /  nm  h« 
that  r(dh  the  man  (f  his  counsel,  nficT  which  the  construction  is  continued 
regularly  in  tbe  first  pers<m. — 1^  denotes  accession,  and  is  sometimes 
equivalent  to  a!ao,  sometimes  to  nay  more.     It  has  hero  the  force  of  not 


Ver.  12,  13.J  ISAIAH  XLVI.  195 

only  this  Ind  also  that,  or  both  this  and  also  that, — ^V)  is  not  hero  synony- 
mous with  n'y'J^  as  in  chap.  xHv.  2,  but  opposed  to  it,  mcaninf;;  to  conceive 
or  foi-m  the  plan  of  anything,  as  in  chap.  xxii.  11,  xxxviii.  26,  Jor.  xviii.  11, 
Ps.  xciv.  20,  Isa.  xxxvii.  20.  The  antithesis  expressed  is  that  between 
design  and  execution.  The  feminine  suffix  con*esponds  to  our  neuter  pro- 
noun it,  referring  to  the  feminine  noun  nyy.,  {,  e.  purpose  or  counsel. 

12.  Jfcar/cen  to  me,  ye  fitout  of  heart,  those  far  from  riyhteouftness.  By  an 
easy  and  natural  association,  he  subjoins  to  these  proofs  of  his  own  divinity, 
both  past  and  future,  a  warning  to  those  who  were  unwilling  to  receive 
them.  Strength  of  heart  implies,  though  it  does  not  directh'  signify, 
stubbornness  or  obstinacy,  and  a  settled  opposition  to  the  will  of  God. 
Because  1'3^?  is  sometimes  absolutely  used  in  the  sense  of  a  bull  (Ps.  xxii. 
13,  1.  13),  Hitzig  says  that  it  here  strictly  means  bulls  in  intellect  {Stiere 
an  Vermmft). — The  same  persons  are  here  described  as  far  from  righteous- 
ness, which  some  understand  as  meaning  far  from  rectitude  or  truth,  i.  e. 
deceitful,  insincere.  Others  explain  it  to  mean  those  who  regard  the  exhi- 
bition of  God's  righteousness  as  still  far  distant.  But  the  only  natural  inter- 
pretation is  the  one  which  gives  the  words  their  obvious  and  usual  sense,  as 
signifying  those  who  are  not  righteous  before  God,  in  other  words  the 
wicked,  the  words /rtr//om  expressing  the  degree  of  their  depravity. 

13.  /  have  brought  near  my  riyhteoimiess,  it  shall  not  be  fir  ojf;  and  my 
salvation,  it  shall  not  tarry;  and  I  will  give  {nv  j)laee)  in  Zionjny- salvation, 
to  Israel  my  yJory.  Because  righteousness  and  salvation  frequently  occur 
as  parallel  expressions,  most  of  the  modern  German  writers  treat  them  as 
synonymous,  whereas  one  denotes  the  cause  and  the  other  the  effect,  one 
relates  to  God,  and  the  other  to  man.  The  sense  in  which  salvation 
can  be  referred  to  the  righteousness  of  God  is  clear  from  chap.  i.  27. 
(See  vol.  i.  p.  93.)  The  exhibition  of  God's  righteousness  consists 
iiT'the  salvation  of  his  people  and  the  simultaneous  destruction  of  his 
enemies.  To  these  two  classes  it  was  therefore  at  the  same  time  an 
object  of  desire  and  dread.  The  stout-hearted  mentioned  in  ver.  12  were 
not  prepared  for  it,  and,  unless  they  were  changed,  must  perish  when  God's 
righteousness  came  near. — The  last  words  admit  of  two  constructions,  one 
of  which  repeats  the  verb  and  makes  it  govern  the  last  noun  (I  will  give 
my  glory  unto  Israel) ;  the  other  makes  the  clause  a  supplement  to  what 
precedes,  I  will  give  salvation  in  Zion  unto  Israel  (who  is)  my  glory.  In 
illustration  of  the  latter,  see  chaps,  xliv.  23,  Ixii.  3 ;  Jer.  xxxiii.  9.  The 
other  construction  has  more  of  the  parallel  or  balanced  form  which  is  com- 
monly considered  characteristic  of  Hebrew  composition.  In  sense  they 
ultimately  coincide,  since  Israel  could  become  Jehovah's  glory  only  by 
Jehovah's  glory  being  bestowed  upon  him. 


CHAPTER    XLVII. 

Here  again  we  meet  with  the  most  discordant  and  unfounded  assump- 
tions, as  to  the  connection  of  this  chapter  with  the  context,  and  arising 
from  the  same  misapprehension  of  the  general  design  of  the  whole  prophecy. 
Hitzig,  because  he  cannot  make  it  fit  into  an  artificial  system  of  his  own, 
involving  the  hypothesis  of  several  successive  compositions,  corresponding 
to  the  progress  of  events  under  Cyrus,  arbitrarily  describes  it  as  an  insu- 
lated prophecy,  older  than  those  which  now  precede  it,   and  afterwards 


190  IS.UAII  XLVII.  ^VtR.  1. 

wronj^lit  into  its  present  place.  In  support  of  this  violent  and  desperate 
assumption  he  appeals  to  the  close  connection  between  ihe  last  verse  of 
chap,  xlvi.,  and  the  lirst  of  chap,  xlviii ;  an  argument  which  might  be  used, 
with  equal  plausibility,  to  throw  out  any  portion  of  the  book,  because 
throughout  these  later  prophecies  certain  apostrophes  and  other  fonuulas  are 
constantly  recurring  at  irregular  intervals.  Hendewerk,  on  the  other  hand, 
60  far  from  seeing  any  want  of  continuity  between  this  chapter  and  the  two 
before  and  after  it,  represents  the  three  as  constituting  a  "  cycle  "  or  divi- 
sion of  a  cycle.  But  even  those  who  hold  a  middle  course  between  these 
violent  extremes  commit  the  usual  error  of  inverting  the  legitimate  relation 
of  the  topics  to  each  other,  by  making  the  prediction  of  the  downfall  of 
Babylon  the  Prophet's  main  theme,  and  not  a  specific  illustration  of  it. 
The  dilKculties  which  this  false  assumption  has  occasioned  with  respect  to 
the  arrangement  of  the  chapter  will  be  seen  below  from  the  interpretation  of 
the  fourth  verse.  Another  undesirable  cflect  of  the  same  error  is  the  neces- 
sity imposed  upon  some  eminent  interpreters,  Yitringa  for  example,  of 
superadding  to  their  exposition  of  the  chapter  an  account  of  what  they  call 
its  mystical  sense,  that  is  to  say,  the  application  of  its  terms  in  the  New 
Testament  to  Rome,  both  Pagan  and  Apostate  (Ilov.  xviii.).  Such  a  pro- 
ceeding may  bo  looked  upon  as  necessary  on  the  supposition  that  the 
Babylon  here  threatened  is  the  groat  theme  of  the  prophecy ;  but  if  it  is 
merely  introduced  as  a  remarkable  example  of  God's  dealings  with  his 
enemies  and  those  of  his  people,  it  is  dilKcult  to  see  why  its  images  and 
tenns  may  not  be  used  in  other  prophecies  directed  against  other  objects, 
without  compelling  us  to  comprehend  those  objects  in  the  proper  scope  of 
the  original  prediction.  Cowper  has  paraphrased  the  song  of  Israel  over 
the  fallen  king  of  Bab3lon  in  chap,  xiv.,  and  put  it  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Peruvian  Incas  upbraiding  their  Spanish  tyrants.  If  it  could  now  bo 
proved  that  Cowper  was  inspired  when  he  wrote  this  poem,  would  it  follow 
that  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Isaiah  had  reference  either  literal  or  mystical 
to  Pizarro  or  Peru  ?  If  this  would  not  be  a  legitimate  conclusion  in  the 
supposed  case,  then  all  the  facts  of  the  real  case  may  be  suthcieutly 
accounted  for,  i)y  simply  assuming  that  the  costume  of  this  projdiecy  was 
reproduced  by  inspiration  in  another,  on  a  subject  similar  but  not  identical; 
that  this  new  prophecy  is  not  a  repetition  or  an  explanation  but  at  most  an 
imitation  of  the  old  one ;  and  finally,  that  what  Yitringa  calls  the  mystical 
sense  of  the  chapter  now  before  us  is  really  the  strict  sense  of  another 
passage,  and  belongs  therefore  not  to  the  interpretation  of  Isuiiih,  but  t  ■ 
that  of  the  Apocalypse.     The  following  seems  to  be  the  true  analysis. 

Having  exemplified  his  general  doctrine,  as  to  God's  ability  and  purpose 
to  do  justice  both  to  friends  and  foes,  by  exhibiting  the  downfall  of  the 
Babylonian  idols,  ho  now  attains  the  same  end  by  predicting  the  downfall 
of  Babylon  itself,  and  of  the  Stale  to  which  it  gave  its  name.  Under  the 
figure  of  a  royal  virgin,  she  is  threatened  with  extreme  degradation  and  ex- 
posure, vers.  1-3.  Connecting  this  event  with  Israel  and  Israel's  God,  :i 
the  great  themes  which  it  was  intended  to  illustrate,  ver.  4,  he  predicts  tl 
fall  of  the  empire  more  distinctly,  ver.  H,  and  assigns  as  a  reason  th' 
oppression  of  God's  people,  ver.  0,  prido  and  self-confidence,  vers.  7-".'. 
especially  reliance  upon  Inunan  wisdom  and  upon  superstitious  arts,  a  1 
which  would  prove  entirelv  insufficient  to  prevent  the  great  catastropb< , 
vers.  10-15. 

1.  ComeJotni!     By  a   beautiful   apostrophe,  the   mighty  ik)w»t  to   be 
humbled  is  addressed  directly,  and  the  prediction  of  her  humiliation  clothed 


Ykr.  l.J  ISAIAII  XLVII.  197 

in  the  form  of  a  command  to  exhibit  the  external  signs  of  it. — Sit 
on  the  (lust !  This,  which  is  the  hteral  translation  of  the  Hebrew 
phrase,  may  be  conformed  to  our  idiom  either  by  substituting  in  for  on, 
or  by  understanding  I^J^  to  denote,  as  it  sometimes  does,  the  solid 
ground.  (See  chap.  ii.  19,  vol.  i.  p.  105.)  The  act  of  sitting  on  the 
ground  is  elsewhere  mentioned  as  a  customary  sign  of  grief.  (See  chap, 
iii.  20;  Lam.  ii.  10;  Job  ii.  13.)  But  here  it  is  designed,  chiefly  if  not 
exclusively,  to  suggest  the  idea  of  dethronement  which  is  afterwards  ex- 
pressed distinctly. — The  next  phrase  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  virgin 
daughter  of  Bahel  {i.  e.  Bahjlon),  which,  according  to  Gesenius,  is  a  collec- 
tive personification  of  the  inhabitants.  But  as  n>"in|,  notwithstanding  its 
construct  form,  is  really  in  apposition  with  n?  {virgin  daughter),  so  n3  may 

be  in  apposition  with  ^'^'^  [daughter  Bahcl),  and  denote  not  the  daughter 
of  Babylon,  but  Babylon  itself,  personified  as  a  virgin  and  a  daughter, 
in  which  case  the  latter  word  may  have  the  wide  sense  of  the  French 
Jille,  and  be  really  sjTionymous  with  virgin.  (See  chap,  xxxvii.  22, 
p.  Go.)  But  whatever  may  be  the  primary  import  of  the  phrase, 
it  is  admitted  upon  all  hands  to  be  descriptive  either  of  the  city  of 
Babylon,  or  of  the  Babylonian  State  and  nation.  Whether  that  power 
is  described  as  a  virgin  because  hitherto  unconquered,  is  much  more 
doubtful,  as  this  explanation  seems  to  mar  the  simplicity  of  the  description 
by  confounding  the  sign  with  the  thing  signified. — Sit  to  the  earth  !  i.  e. 
close  to  it,  or  simply  on  it,  as  Ps.  ix.  5,  where  the  vague  sense  of  the 
particle  is  determined  by  the  verb  and  noun  with  which  it  stands  con- 
nected. To  sit  as  to  a  throne  can  only  mean  to  sit  upon  it.  There  is  no 
throne.  Some  connect  this  with  what  goes  before,  in  this  way  :  sit  on 
the  earth  without  a  throne.  But  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the 
idiomatic  form  of  the  original,  in  which  these  words  are  a  complete  pro- 
position, which  may  be  connected  with  what  goes  before  by  supplying 
a  causal  particle  :  "  sit  on  the  earth,  for  j-ou  have  now  no  throne." 
—  Dcmghter  of  Chasdim  !  This  last  is  the  common  Hebrew  name 
for  the  Chaldees  or  Chaldeans,  the  race  introduced  by  the  Assyrians, 
at  an  early  period,  into  Babylonia.  (See  chap,  xxiii.  13,  vol.  i.  pp. 
898-9.  Compare  also  what  is  said  above,  on  chap,  xliii.  14.)  If  taken 
here  in  this  sense,  it  may  be  understood  to  signify  the  government,  or 
the  collective  members  of  this  race.  Rosenmiiller  applies  it  to  the  city, 
and  supposes  it  to  be  so  called  because  built  by  the  Chaldeans.  But 
this  is  equally  at  variance  with  history  and  with  the  analogy  of  other 
cases  where  a  like  explanation  would  be  inadmissible.  Daughter  n/ Chas- 
dim must  of  course  be  an  analogous  expression  to  the  parallel  phrase 
daughter  of  Babel,  which  certainly  cannot  mean  a  city  built  by  Babylon. 
Besides  the  strict  use  of  D'"!!*^'?  as  a  plural,  it  is  unequivocally  used  now 
and  then  as  the  name  of  the  country,  analogous  to  D^VP  which  is  a 
dual.  Sen  for  example  Jer.  Ii.  24,  35,  where  we  read  of  the  inhabitants 
of  Chasdim,  and  Ezek.  xvi.  29,  where  it  takes  the  local  or  directive  n. 
If  the  word  be  so  explained  in  this  case,  it  will  make  the  correspond- 
ence of  the  clauses  still  more  exact. — For  thou  shalt  not  add  (or  continue) 
to  be  called,  would  be  the  natural  and  usual  conclusion  of  the  phrase ; 
instead  of  which  we  have  here  theij  shall  not  call  thee,  which  is  common 
enough  as  an  indefinite  expression  equivalent  to  a  passive,  and  only 
remarkable  for  its  combination  with  the  preceding  words,  although  the 
sense  of    the   whole   clause   is   quite  obvious.       Thou  shalt   not   continue 


198  ISAIAH  XLVIl.  [Ver.  2,  8. 

to  he  called  (or  they  shall  no  longer  call  thee)  tender  and  delicate,  i.  c.  they 
shall  no  longer  have  occasion  so  to  call  thee,  because  thou  shalt  do 
longer  be  so.  The  same  two  epithets  are  found  in  combination,  Deut. 
xxviii.  54,  from  which  place  it  is  clear  that  they  are  not  so  much  de- 
scriptive of  voluptuous  and  vicious  habits  as  of  a  delicate  and  easy  mode  of 
life,  such  as  that  of  a  princess  compared  with  that  of  a  female  slave.  The 
testimonies  of  the  ancient  writers  as  to  the  prevalent  iniquities  of  Babylon 
belont,'  rather  to  a  subsequent  part  of  the  description.  All  that  is  here 
meant  is  that  the  royal  virj^'in  must  descend  from  the  throne  to  the  dust, 
and  relinquish  the  lu.Tui'ies  and  comforts  of  her  former  mode  of  life. 

2.  Take  mill-stones  and  grind  meal!  Even  among  the  Romans  this  was 
considered  one  of  the  most  servile  occupations.  In  the  East  it  was  espe- 
cially work  of  female  slaves.  Exod.  xi.  5,  Matt,  xxiv,  41. —  Uncover  {i.e. 
lift  up  or  remove)  thy  veil !  One  of  the  Arabian  poets  speaks  of  certain 
ladies  as  appearing  unveiled  so  that  they  resembled  slaves,  which  is  exactly 
the  idea  here  expressed  Yitringa  and  others  render  "^riGV  thy  hair  or  thy 
braided  lacks,  which  rests  on  an  Arabic  analogy,  as  the  sense  of  veil,  now 
commonly  adopted,  does  on  Chaldee  usage.  The  parallel  word  ^3^^'  is  also 
understood  by  some  as  meaning  hair,  by  others  ihofuol,  or  the  sleeve  ;  but 
most  interpreters  are  now  agreed  in  giving  it  the  sense  of  shirt,  and  to 
the  whole  phrase  that  of  lift  up  (literally  strip)  thy  skirt  (or  train),  corre- 
sponding to  the  lifting  of  the  veil  in  the  preceding  clause. — Uncover  the 
ley,  cross  streavis!  The  only  question  as  to  this  clause  is,  whether  it  refers, 
as  Gesenius  and  Ewald  think,  to  the  fording  of  rivers  by  female  captives  as 
they  go  into  exile,  or  to  the  habitual  exposure  of  the  jjcrson,  by  which 
women  of  the  lowest  class  are  especially  distinguished  iu  the  East.  The 
latter  explanation,  which  is  that  of  Vitringa,  is  entitled  to  the  preference, 
not  only  because  we  read  of  no  deportation  of  the  Babylonians  by  Cyrus, 
but  because  the  other  terms  of  the  description  are  confessedly  intended  to 
contrast  to  conditions  of  life  or  classes  of  society. 

8.  Thesame  idea  of  exposure  is  now  carried  out  to  a  revolting  extreme. 
let  thy  nakednesH  he  uncovered,  likewise  let  thy  shame  he  seen.  This  conveys 
no  new  idea,  but  is  simply  the  climax  of  the  previous  description. — /  uill 
take  vengeance.  The  metaphor  is  here  exchanged  for  literal  expressions  by 
80  easy  a  transition  that  it  scarcely  attracts  notice.  The  destruction  of 
Babylon  is  frequently  set  forth  as  a  righteous  retribution  for  the  wrongs  of 
Israel.  (See.  Jer.  1.'  15,  28.)— 7  tvill  not  (or  7  shfdl  not)  meet  a  man.  Of 
the  various  and  discordant  explanations  of  this  clause,  it  will  suffice  to 
mention  one  or  two  of  the  most  current  or  most  plausible.  Some  give  V.^B 
the  sense  which  it  has  elsewhere  whi-n  followed  by  the  preposition  3,  viz. 
that  of  interceding.  Thus  Jarchi  understands  the  words  to  mean,  I  will 
not  intercede  with  (or  solicit)  any  man  to  avenge  me,  but  avenge  myself. 
Grotius  gives  the  verb  the  sense  of  admitting  intercession  :  and  Lowth,  for 
the  same  pjn-i)oso,  reads  V'JSN  in  the  Hiphil  form  {neither  tcill  I  suffer  man 
to  intercede  uith  7ne).  Gesenius,  in  his  Comnieiitary,  traces  an  affinity 
between  PyS  and  *1p3  to  visit,  and  explains  the  clause  to  mean  7  will  spare 
no  man.  In  his  Thcsatinis  he  connects  it  with  V?J,  cjjyviw,  and  paciacor, 
and  agrees  with  Maurer  in  translating,  7  will  a'rikc  (or  ratify)  a  league  ivith 
no  man.  But  the  explanation  most  agreeable  to  usage,  and  at  the  same 
time  simplest  as  to  syntax,  is,  T  xhall  (or  trill)  meet  no  man  This  is  not  to 
be  understood,  howevir,  with  Vitringa,  as  meaning  that  ho  would  find  no 
one  to  avenge  him,  or  that  if  he  did  not,  he  would  still  avenge  himself. 
The  true  sense  is  that  expressed  by  Rosenmiillcr,  7  shall  encounter  no  man, 


Ver.  4-G.j  ISAIAH  XLVII.  199 

i.  e.  no  man  will  be  able  to  resist  me.  This  simple  explanation  is  at  the  same 
time  one  of  the  most  ancient,  as  we  find  it  distinctly  expressed  by  Symmachiis 
(oOx  avri07r,(iiTat  fioi  avO^uTog)  and  in  the  Vulgate  (non  resistet  mihi  homo). 
— ludepondetly  of  these  minuter  questions,  it  is  clear  that  the  whole 
clause  is  a  laconic  explanation  of  the  figures  which  precede,  and  which  are 
summed  up  in  the  simple  but  terrific  notion  of  resistless  and  inexorable 
vengeance. 

4.  Our  Redeemer  (or  as  for  our  Redeemer),  Jehovah  of  hosts  (is)  his  name, 
the  Uohj  One  of  Israel.  The  downfall  of  Babylon  was  but  a  proof  that 
the  Deliverer  of  Israel  was  a  sovereign  and  eternal  Being,  and  yet  bound  to 
his  own  people  in  the  strongest  and  tenderest  covenant  relation.  Thus 
understood,  the  verse  does  not  even  interrupt  the  sense,  but  makes  it 
clearer,  hx  recalling  to  the  reader's  mind  the  great  end  for  which  the  event 
took  place  and  for  which  it  is  here  predicted.  Compare  with  this  Lowth's 
pedantic  supposition  of  a  chorus,  which  is  scarcely  more  natural  than  that 
of  a  committee  or  of  a  jun,-,  and  Eichhorn's  deplorable  suggestion  that  the 
verse  is  a  devout  reflection  of  some  Jewish  reader,  accidentally  transplanted 
from  the  margin  to  the  text.  This  is  justly  represented  by  Geseuius  as  a 
makeshift  {Sothbehelf),  a  description  equally  appropriate  to  many  of  his 
own  erasures  elsewhere,  if  not  to  his  extravagant  assumption  here,  that  the 
words  thus  saith  have  been  left  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence. 
Maurer  improvei  upon  the  strange  exegetical  device  by  making  the  verse 
merely  introductory  to  that  which  follows,  Thus  saith  our  Ixcdcemer,  u-hose 
name  /•>■  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  Uohj  One  of  Israel,  Sit  in  silence,  &c.  In 
this  way  everything  may  easily  be  made  to  denote  anything.  The  only 
tenable  conclusion  is  the  obvious  and  simple  one,  that  this  is  a  distinct 
link  in  the  chain  of  the  prophetic  argument,  by  which  the  fall  of  Babylon  is 
brought  into  connection  and  subordination  to  the  proof  of  God's  supremacy 
as  she\\ai  in  the  protection  and  salvation  of  his  people.  That  the  Prophet 
speaks  here  in  his  own  person,  is  but  a  single  instance  of  a  general  usage, 
characteristic  of  the  whole  composition,  in  which  God  is  spoken  of,  spoken 
to,  or  introduced  as  speaking,  in  constant  alternation  ;  yet  without  con- 
fusion, or  the  slightest  obscuration  of  the  general  meaning. 

5.  Sit  silent  (or  in  silence),  a)id  go  into  darkness  (or  a  dark  place),  daugh- 
ter of  Chasdim !  The  allusion  is  to  natural  and  usual  expressions  of  sorrow 
and  despondency.  (See  Lam.  ii.  10,  iii.  2,  28.)  The  explanation  of  rfar^- 
ness  as  a  metaphor  for  prison  does  not  suit  the  context,  and  is  no  more 
natural  or  necessary  here  than  in  chap.  xlii.  7. —  For  thou  shalt  not  con- 
tinue to  be  called  (or  they  shall  not  continue  to  call  thee)  mistress  of  king- 
doms. This  is  an  allusion  to  the  Babylonian  empire,  as  distinguished  from 
Babylonia  Proper,  and  including  many  tributary  States  which  Xenophon 
enumerates.  In  like  manner  the  Assyrian  king  is  made  to  ask  (chap.  x.  8), 
Are  not  my  princes  altogether  kings  ? 

6.  I  was  tvroth  against  nig  people;  I  profaned  mg  heritage,  i.e.  I  sviffered 
my  chosen  and  consecrated  people  to  be  treated  as  something  common  and 
unclean.  In  the  same  sense  God  is  said  before  (chap,  xliii.  28)  to  have 
profaned  the  holg princes.  Israel  is  called  Jehovah's  heritage,  as  being  his 
perpetual  possession,  continued  from  one  generation  to  another.  This 
general  import  of  the  figure  is  obvious  enough,  although  there  is  an  essen- 
tial difiereuce  between  this  case  and  that  of  literal  inheritance,  because  in 
the  latter,  the  change  and  succession  afi'ect  the  proprietor,  whereas  in  the 
former  they  affect  the  thing  possessed,  and  the  possessor  is  unchangeable. 
— A  nd  I  gave  them  into  thy  hand,   as  my  instruments  of  chastisement. 


200  ISAIAH  XLVI I.  [Ver.  7,  8. 

Thou  didst  not  show  them  mercy,  literally  place  (give  or  appoint)  it  to  them. 
God's  providential  purpose  was  not  even  known  to  his  instruments,  and 
could  not  therefore  be  the  rule  of  their  conduct  or  the  measure  of  their 
responsibility.  Though  unconsciously  promoting  his  designs,  their  own 
ends  and  motives  were  entirely  corrupt.  In  the  precisely  analogous  case 
of  the  Ass}Tian,  it  is  said  (ch;ip.  x.  7),  he  wili  vol  think  so,  and  his  heart 
not  so  toil  I  purpose,  because  to  destroy  [is)  in  his  heart  and  to  cut  off'  nations 
not  a  few. — The  general  charge  is  strengthened  by  a  specific  aggravation. 
On  the  aged  thou  didst  arjijravate  thy  yoke  (or  mahe  it  heavy)  exceedingly. 
Koppe,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  and  Hitzig,  undurstand  this  of  the  whole  people, 
whom  they  suppose  to  be  described  as  old,  i.  e.  as  hanng  reached  the  period 
of  natural  decrepitude.  Umbreit  agrees  with  Grotius  and  Vitringa  in  preferring 
the  strict  senge  of  the  words,  viz.  that  they  are  cruelly  oppressive  even  to 
the  aged  captives,  under  which  Vitringa  is  disposed  to  include  elders  in 
office  and  rank,  as  well  as  in  age.  The  particular  form  of  inhumanity  is 
charged  upon  the  Babylonians  by  Jeremiah  twice  (Lam.  iv.  16,  v.  12),  and 
in  both  cases  he  connects  D'JpT  with  a  parallel  term  denoting  rank  or  office, 
viz.,  priests  and  princes.  Between  the  two  interpretations  of  the  clause 
which  have  been  stated,  Knobel  undertakes  to  steer  a  middle  course,  by 
explaining  IP.J  to  mean  aged  in  the  strict  sense,  but  supposing  at  the  same 
time  that  this  single  act  of  tyranny  is  put  for  inhumanity  in  general.  (Com- 
pare Deut.  xxviii.  50.)  The  essential  meaning  of  the  clause,  as  a  descrip- 
tion of  inordinate  severity  to  those  least  capable  of  retaliation  or  resistance, 
still  remains  the  same  in  either  case. 

7.  And  thou  saidsf,  Fur  ever  I  shall  he  a  mintress,  i.  e.  a  mistress  of  king- 
doms, the  complete  phrase  which  occurs  above  in  ver.  5.  The  sense  of 
ijueen  is  therefore  wholly  inadequate,  unless  we  understand  it  to  mean  queen 
of  queens  or  queen  oj  kings.  The  ellipsis  suggested  may  perhaps  account 
fi)r  the  use  of  what  might  seem  to  be  a  construct  form,  instead  of  the  syno- 
n%-mous  HT?^  (1  Kings  xi.  19).  Hitzig,  however,  goes  too  far  when  ho 
makes  this  a  ground  for  disregarding  the  accentuation  and  connecting  the 
two  words  "IJ?  ri")5^  in  the  sense  of  a  mistress  of  eternity,  i.  e.  a  perjietual 
mistress.  (Compare  Gen.  xlix.  20,  Hab.  iii.  (>,  Isa.  ix.  5.)  As  examples 
of  the  sogholate  termination  of  the  absolute  form,  M:iurer  cites  J^P?.??'  (Ezek. 
xvi.  30)  and  ^'}'^i<  (Kzek.  xvii.  8).  Hitzig  also  objects  to  the  Masoretic 
intcrpunction,  that  it  requires  IV  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  so  that,  contrary 
to  usage.  lUit  this,  though  assumed  by  Gesenius  and  most  of  the  other 
modern  writers,  is  entirely  gratuitous.  The  conjunction  has  its  proper  sense 
of  until,  as  in  Job.  xiv.  G  ;  1  Sam.  xx.  41,  and  the  meaning  of  the  clause  is, 
that  she  had  persisted  in  this  evil  course  until  at  last  it  had  its  natural  effect 
of  blinding  the  mind  and  hardening  the  heart.  Thou  suidsl,  For  errr  J  sh(dl 
be  a  mistress,  till  (at  last)  thou  didst  not  lay  these  (things)  to  thy  heart.  The 
idea  of  causal  dependence  {sn  that)  is  implied  but  not  expressed.  Laying 
to  heart,  including  an  exercise  of  intellect  and  feeling,  occurs,  with  slight 
variations  as  to  form,  in  chap.  xlii.  2/),  xliv.  10,  xlvi.  8. — 77io»  didst  twt 
remember  the  end  (or  latter  part,  or  issw)  of  it,  i.e.  of  the  course  pursued, 
the  feminine  pronoun  being  put  for  a  neuter  as  in  chap.  xlvi.  11,  and  often 
elsewhere.  The  apparent  solecism  of  remembering  the  future  may  be  solved 
by  observing  that  the  thing  forgotten  was  the  knowledge  of  the  future  once 
possessed,  just  as  in  common  parlanec  wo  use  hope  in  reference  to  the  past, 
because  wc  hope  to  find  it  so,  or  hope  that  something  questionable  now  will 
prove  hereafter  t<i  bo  thus  and  thus. 

8.  And  noir,  a  common  form  of  logical  resumption  and  conclusion,  very 


Ver.  8.]  ISAIAU  XLVll.  201 

nearly  corresponding  to  our  phrases,  this  heing  so,  or,  such  being  the  case. 
—  Hear  this,  i.  e.  what  I  have  just  said,  or  am  just  about  to  say,  or  both. 
Oh  voluptuous  one!  The  common  version,  tliou  tJiat  art  r/iveii  to  jileasurcs, 
is  substantially  correct,  but  in  form  too  paraphrastical.  The  translation 
delicate,  which  some  give,  is  inadequate  at  least  upon  the  common  supposi- 
tion that  this  term  is  not  intended,  like  the  kindred  ones  in  ver.  1,  to  con- 
trast the  two  conditions  of  prosperity  and  downfoll,  but  to  bring  against  the 
Babylonians  the  specific  charge  of  gross  licentiousness,  in  proof  and  illus- 
tration of  which  Vitringa  quotes  the  words  of  Quintus  Curtius  ;  nihil  urbis 
ejus  corruptius  morihus,  nee  ad  irrilandas  illiciendasque  irmnodicas  voluptates 
instructius,  to  which,  after  certain  gross  details,  the  historian  adds.  Baby- 
lonii  ma.iiinein  vinuin  et  qntr  ehrietatemsequuntureffuusunt.  This  corrup- 
tion of  morals,  as  in  other  like  cases,  is  supposed  to  have  been  aggravated 
by  the  wealth  of  Babylon,  its  teeming  population,  and  the  vast  concourse 
of  foreign  visitors  and  residents.  After  all,  however,  as  this  charge  is  not 
repeated  or  insisted  on,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  epithet  in  question 
was  intended  to  express  more  than  the  fact  of  her  abundant  prosperity 
about  to  be  exchanged  for  desolation  and  disgrace. — The  (one)  fitting  in 
secitriti/.  The  common  version,  dwellest,  is  as  much  too  vague  as  that  of 
Ipwald,  which  explains  it  to  mean  sittinrf  on  a  throne,  is  too  specific.  Sit- 
ting seems  rather  to  be  mentioned  as  a  posture  of  security  and  ease. — 
2'he  (one)  saijing  in  her  heart  (or  to  herself),  I  (am)  and  none  besides,  i.  c. 
none  hke  or  equal  to  me.  There  has  been  much  dispute  respecting  the 
precise  sense  of  'PP^? ;  but  the  question  is  only  of  grammatical  importance, 
as  all  admit  that  the  whole  phrase  liy  ''P?5<  is  equivalent  in  import  to  the 
common  one  "IIV  P^^  (chap.  xlv.  5,  G,  18,  &c.)  The  only  doubt  is  whether 
^p^X  is  simply  negative  like  P*?,  or  exceptive  {besides  me),  or  at  the  same 
time  negative  and  exceptive  [none  besides  me).  This  double  explanation  is 
given  by  Noldius  and  Vitringa,  but  is  justly  regarded  by  the  later  writers 
as  untenable.  Cocceius  makes  it  mean  besides  me,  and  assumes  an  inter- 
rogation, which  is  altogether  arbitrary.  De  Dieu  adopts  the  same  con- 
struction, but  suggests  that  "'P?^  may  mean  ojihj  I.  as  D?{;{  certainly  means 
only  in  Num.  xii.  35,  xxiii.  13.  This  is  adopted  by  Gesenius  in  his  Com- 
mentary. Hitzig  objects  that  Tiy  is  then  superfluous,  and  that  analogy  would 
require  ^J^?  D5i<.  He  therefore  makes  it  simply  exceptive  (besides  mr),  and 
supposes  an  ellipsis  of  the  negative.  Kosenmiiller,  Ewald,  Umbreit, 
ICnobel,  and  Gesenius  in  the  notes  to  the  second  edition  of  his  version, 
follow  J.  H.  Michaelis  in  making  it  a  paragogic  form  and  simply  negative 
[there  is  no  other,  or  7wne  besides).  Maurer  goes  further,  and  explains  "Iiy 
as  a  substantive,  dependent  on  the  construct  form  before  it ;  literally, 
nothing  of  more.  The  sentiment  expressed  is  that  of  Martial  with  respect 
to  Home,  cui  jyar  est  niliil  et  nihil  secundum.  (Compai'e  the  words  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  Dan.  iv.  30.)  There  is  even  an  assumption  of  divine 
supremacy  in  these  words,  when  compared  with  the  frequent  use  of  the 
pronoun  /,  in  the  solemn  declarations  of  Jehovah  (chap.  xlv.  6,  12, 
xliii.  11,  &c.) — I  shall  not  sit  [as)  a  loidoio.  The  figure  of  a  virgin  is  now 
exchanged  for  that  of  a  wife,  a  strong  proof  that  the  sign  was,  in  the 
^\Titer's  view,  of  less  importance  than  the  thing  signified.  It  is  needless 
to  inquire,  with  Vitringa,  whether  the  husbancl,  whose  loss  is  here  implied, 
be  the  king  or  the  chief  men  collectively.  It  is  not  the  city  or  the  State 
of  which  widowhood  is  directly  predicated,  but  the  royal  personage  that 
represents  it.  The  same  comparison  is  used  by  Jeremiah  of  Jerusalem 
(Lam.  i.  1).     (Compare  Isa.  li.   18-20,  liv.  1.  4,  5;  Rev.  xiv.  7.)     Ac- 


202  ISAIAJI  XLVJL  [Ver.  9. 

cording  to  J.  1).  Michaelis,  the  State  is  the  mother,  the  soldiers  or  citizens 
her  sons,  and  the  king  her  husband,  which  he  illustrates  by  the  use  of  the 
title  Deif  and  other  terms  of  relationship  to  designate  the  State,  the  govern- 
ment, itc,  in  Algiers  and  other  parts  of  Barbary.  To  mt  as  a  widow  is 
is  considered  by  Gesenius  as  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  mourner ;  yet  in  his 
German  version  he  omits  the  word  entirely,  and  translates,  "  I  shall  never 
be  a  widow,"  in  which  he  is  closely  followed  by  De  Wette.  All  the  inter- 
jireters,  from  Grotius  to  Kwald,  seem  to  understand  widowhood  as  a  specific 
figure  for  the  loss  of  a  king  ;  but  Knobel  boldly  questions  it,  and  applies 
the  whole  clause  to  the  loss  of  allies,  or  of  all  friendly  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations. — And  I  shall  not  know  (by  experience)  the  loss  of  children. 
This  paraphrastical  expression  is  the  nearest  approach  that  we  can  make 
in  English  to  the  pregnant  Hebrew  word  713^*.  Bereavement  and  childless- 
ness may  seem  at  first  sight  more  exact,  but  the  first  is  not  exclusively 
appropriate  to  the  loss  of  children,  and  the  last  does  not  suggest  the  idea 
of  loss  at  all.  This  last  clause  is  paraphrased  by  Noyes,  nor  see  myself 
childless ;  better  by  Henderson,  7wr  knoiv  what  it  is  to  be  childless. 

0.  Ayid  they  shall  come  to  thee.  The  form  of  expression  seems  to  have 
some  reference  to  the  phrase  /  shall  not  know  in  the  preceding  verse.  As 
if  he  had  said,  they  shall  no  longer  be  unknown  or  at  a  distance,  they  shall 
come  near  to  thee.  These  tivo,  or  both  these  (things),  from  which  she 
thought  herself  secure  for  ever. — Suddenly.  VY^  is  a  noun,  and  originally 
means  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  and  then  a  moment,  but  is  often  used 
adverbially  in  the  sense  of  snddeidy.  That  it  has  the  derivative  sense 
here  may  be  inferred  from  the  addition  of  the  words  in  one  day,  which 
would  be  a  striking  anticlimax  if  ViT  strictly  meant  a  moment  or  the 
twiidiling  of  an  eye.  This  objection  is  but  partially  removed  by  Lowth's 
change  of  the  interpunction  {these  two  thinr/s  in  a  moment,  in  one  day  loss  of 
childirn  and  widowhood!),  because  the  first  expression  is  still  much  the 
strongest,  unless  we  understand  in  one  day  to  express  not  mere  rapidity  or 
suddenness,  but  the  concurrence  of  the  two  privations. — Loss  of  children 
and  widiinhnod,  as  in  the  verse  preceding,  are  explained  by  most  interpre- 
ters as  figiires  for  the  loss  of  king  and  people. — In  their  jerfniion,  literally, 
aciordinij  to  it,  i.e.  in  the  fullest  measure  possible,  implying  total  loss  and 
destitution. — Thry  have  come  ujion  thee.  The  English  version  makes  its 
future  like  the  verb  in  the  preceding  clause  ;  but  this  is  wholly  arbitrary. 
There  is  less  objection  to  the  present  form  ad()])ted  by  the  modern  Genuan 
writers  ;  but  according  to  the  principle  already  stated  and  exemplified  so 
often,  it  is  best  to  give  the  word  its  proper  meaning,  and  to  understand  it 
not  as  a  mere  repetition  of  what  goes  before,  but  as  an  addition  to  it,  or  at 
least  a  variation  in  the  mode  of  exhibition.  "What  he  at  first  saw  coming, 
he  now  sees  actually  come,  and  describes  it  accordingly. — Of  the  3  in  the 
next  clause  there  are  three  interpretations.  Ewald  agrees  with  the  English 
Version  and  the  Vulgate  in  explaining  it  to  mean  propter,  on  account  of, 
and  supposing  it  to  bring  a  new  specific  charge  against  the  Habylonians,  by 
assigning  a  new  cause  for  their  destruction,  viz.  their  cultivation  of  the 
occult  arts.  Gesenius  and  llie  other  recent  writers  follow  Calvin  and  Vit- 
ringa  in  making  it  mean  notio ith stand iny,  as  in  chap.  v.  25,  and  Num.  xiv. 
11.  There  is  then  no  new  charge  or  reason  assigned,  but  a  sim])le  decla- 
ration of  the  insufficiency  of  superstitious  arts  to  save  them.  Put  a  better 
course  than  either  is  to  give  the  ])article  its  proper  sense  of  in  or  i;j  the 
midsl  of,  which  suggests  both  the  other  ideas,  but  expresses  more,  viz., 
that  they  should  perish  in  the  very  act  of  using  these  unlawful  and  unprofit- 


'^™-  1"-]  ISAIAH  XLVll.  208 

totto out™!":/  V- ™3 ki^^tstutTih" «r'"",™p';°^?' 

+„  +1  ^  ,     i     ■   •  ^  "o  "i'lo^^'t^  Kiiois,  but  as  the  older  Nvriters  t  linV 

to   herestrammgor  eonstramiug  influence  supposed  to  be  e  c  ted  on  ^h. 
u  u  "Sd''  T  "-'^^  -""^^  themselves.-TheTonstruetion  o/n^D  b're  i 
aU  :"i;  se^farxtoTf    'Ti^'    ^'  •'^^   immediately   dependent   upon    novy 

construed  .^n^n  "T-^^'  "^^^  ^^^.^'-^^  enchantments.  Maurer  says  that  TXO  is 
f^t  nS^r^Ii^H^-tt''  '  ^^'^i^^M^tzig  makes  it  as  usual  an  adverb,  quali! 
sens^isess'enti    tfl     ''  ^1"^^'-^^^"/ ^o  an  infinitive.     In  either  cise  tbe 

Jl^-  ^  'f  \yei)  thou  art  (or  erflrs^  «^n<>-^  m  ^/^y  «vV/!-.r/»m'.  Yitrin  -n  and  most 

p  eit  t:L  d-  h^i'r  ''T'  ""^n^'^  ''-^  '^^  "•'^•^'•"^^"-'  ^ut^itibr^rlTo 

precise  sense  of  the  last  word,  some  refernng  it,  with  Jerome,  to  the  occult  -irts 

citoa  in  ,„.o„f  of  tMs  .pecia'e'ex  ?a"ati„\;  (.th  rch.p. '^lil^JTrnti  T 

Theie  ,s  therefore  no  suffieient  reasoo  for  departing  from  tho  uido  souse  of 
the  word  as  descnpt,™  of  tbe  ,vliole  eongelies  of  erirewihtb  0^1,1 
Se    ourtheir;fcr°i"'''"-,  ^^.  "'""'^'  ■"  '"^  -^'^  -r  t,r,t    ictea 

the  c;f.,fom«,if  ^f  „ +•      ii     'y  "^'":     -^""^  ♦"iiiiga  introduces  this  verse  as 
namelf  ^x  Ikkec  nof  VT?  T  ""^^f  ^^'^  ^''^"^^  ^^  ^^^^'lon's  destruction 

Tnd  relKnce  mi  it      T,  r'''^V^  explaining  it  to  mean  specifically  cnnninn 
be  the  one  ass  mil  thlTrfT'l^''^  ^^«  ^^^"  P^'oposed  above  ma" 

abandoned  for  tbe  old  ^ne      The  L^  „)        ' '°  *""  ""P™^''''  ""■''»"• '''"' 

tb;EVr2?^;j,rs*retiLrn"''rsr  cr  n'\™^^^ 

upo    whicb  tbTu  ill     '°[^^  explanation.     It  may  mean  thj  rer,  roisLn, 

B^a   tbf sai^^   ;,t  /°    """"  ''Y  "'  ^"^^^"^^'  ^^'  '■'-^/•misled  tbee 
the  same  lime  it  may  serve  to  shew  that  wisdom  and  knowledge  are 


204  ISAIAH  XL\  11.  Tkr.  11. 

not  here  to  be  distinguished  but  considered  as  identical.  He  docs  not  say 
tlnj  wisdom  and  hnoxoledije  they  have,  but  it  has,  seduced  thee.  By  wisdom 
uud  knowledge  some  understand  astronomy  and  astrology,  others  political 
sagacity  and  diplomatic  skill,  for  which  it  is  inferred  that  the  Babylonians 
were  distinguished,  from  the  places  where  their  wise  men  are  particularly 
niLiitioned.  (See  for  example  Jcr.  1.  35,  li.  57.)  But  in  these  descriptions 
of  the  Babylonian  empire,  and  the  analogous  accounts  of  Tyre  (Ezek. 
xxviii.  4)  and  Eg}'pt  (Isa.  xix.  11),  the  reference  seems  not  so  much  to  any- 
thing peculiar  to  the  State  in  question,  as  to  that  peculiar  political  wisdom 
which  is  pre-supposed  in  the  verj-  existence,  much  more  in  the  prosperity, 
of  ever}-  great  em]»ire.  Gesenins  understands  these  expressions  as  ironical, 
an  indirect  denial  that  they  were  possessed  of  wisdom.  But  this  is  an 
unneccssar}'  supposition,  and  not  entirely  consistent  with  the  tone  of 
the  whole  context.  It  was  probably  not  merely  the  conceit  of  knowledge 
but  its  actual  possession  that  had  led  the  Babylonians  astray.  The 
verb  33it."  means  to  turn  aside  (convert)  from  one  course  to  another,  and 
is  used  both  in  a  good  sense  and  a  bad  one.  An  example  of  the  former 
may  be  found  below  in  chap.  xlix.  5,  and  of  the  latter  here,  where  the 
word  means  not  exactly  to  pervert,  or  as  Lowth  translates  it,  to  per- 
vert the  mind,  but  rather  to  misguide,  seduce,  or  lead  astray,  like  nt;2n  in 
chap.  xliv.  20.  lliy  knonledge  and  thy  visdom,  it  has  seducrd  thee. — The 
remainder  of  the  verse  describes  the  eil'ect  of  this  perversion  or  seduction 
in  the  same  terms  that  had  been  employed  above  in  ver.  8,  and  which  occur 
elsewhere  only  in  Zeph.  ii.  15,  which  appears  to  be  an  imitation  of  the 
place  before  us,  and  not  its  original  as  Hit/ig  and  otht-rs  arbitrarily  assume. 
— And  thou  sdidst  (or  ha.st  .sirid)  in  thi/  hfdit.  The  indirect  construction,  so 
that  than  hast  said,  contains  more  than  is  expressed,  but  not  more  than  is 
imi)lied,  in  the  original. — /  am  and  there  is  no  other.  J.  D.  Michaolis 
understands  this  boast  to  mean,  I  am  Babylon  and  there  is  no  other.  But 
most  interpreters  prefer  the  general  meaning,  I  am  what  no  one  else  is  ; 
there  is  no  one  like  me,  much  less  equal  to  me.  (See  above,  on  ver.  8.) 
This  arrogant  presumption  is  ascribed  to  their  wisdom  and  knowledge,  not 
as  its  legitimate  eflfect,  but  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  its  per\ersion  and 
abuse,  as  well  as  of  men's  native  disposition  to  exaggerate  the  force  and 
authority  of  unassisted  reason.     (Compare  chap,  v,  21,  vol.  i.  p.  188.) 

11.  And  (so)  there  comet h  (or  has  come)  upon  thee  evil ;  with  an  evident 
allusion  to  the  use  of  '"IJTI  in  the  verse  preceding,  so  as  to  suggest  an  anti- 
thesis between  natural  and  moral  evil,  sin  and  suflVring,  evil  done  and  evil 
experienced.  The  vav  at  the  beginning  is  not  properly  converslve,  as  it 
does  not  depend  upon  a  foregoing  future  (Nordheimer,  §  210)  ;  so  that  the 
common  version  {therefore  shall  ci'il  come)  is  not  strictly  accurate.  Most 
of  the  modern  writers  make  it  present;  but  the  strict  senso  of  the  jmteiite 
is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  context  and  the  usage  of  the  Prophet,  who 
continually  di'picts  occurrences  still  future,  first  as  coming,  then  as  come, 
not  in  fact  but  in  vision,  both  as  certain  to  occur  and  as  historically  repre- 
sented to  his  own  mind.  The  phrase  come  upon  is  explained  by  Vitringa 
!is  implying  descent  from  above  or  infliction  by  a  higher  power. — Of  the 
next  clause  there  are  several  distinct  interpretations,  all  of  which  agree  in 
making  it  descri|)tiye  of  the  nil  threatened  in  the  one  before  it.  From  the 
usi- of  the  verb  "inV"  in  Bsa.  Ixxviii.  91,  and  elsiwhere,  Lowth  and  others 
givf  it  lure  the  sense  of  intercession  {thou  shaft  not  hiow  how  to  deprecate), 
which  seems  to  bo  also  given  in  the  Targum,  and  approved  by  Jarchi. 
Jerome  takes  in'J>  as  a  noun   meaning  dawn,  and   understands  by  it  the 


Ver.  12.]  ISAIAH  XLVIL  205 

origin  or  source  of  the  calamity  (jiescis  ortum  ejus),  in  which  he  is  fullowe.l 
by  Vitringa  and  Rosenmiiller,  who  appear,  however,  to  apply  the  term,  not 
merely  to  the  source  of  the  evil,  but  to  the  time  of  its  commencement 
which  should  be  like  a  day  without  a  dawn,  i.  e.  sudden  and  without  pre- 
monition. There  is  something  so  unnatural,  however,  and  at  variance  with 
usage,  in  the  representation  of  misfortune  as  a  dawning  day,  that  Gescnius, 
Maurer,  and  Umbrcit,  who  retain  the  same  translation  of  the  word,  reverse 
the  sense  of  the  whole  phrase  by  supposing  it  to  mean  not  a  preceding  but 
a  following  dawn ;  in  which  case  the  evil  is  described  not  as  a  day  without 

a   dawn   before   it,  but   as   a  night  without  a  dawning  after  it, a  fi'Ture 

natnral^  and  strildng  in  itself,  and  very  strongly  recommended  by  the^se 
of  "iny*  in  the  same  sense  by  Isaiah  elsewhere.  (See  chap.  viii.  20, 
vol.  i.  p.  193.)  Hitzig  and  Ewald  still  prefer,  however,  the  hypothesis 
of  J,  D.  Michaelis  and  others,  who  identify  ini^  with  the  Arabic 
and  exphiin  it  either  as  a  noun  {against  which  thou  had  no  c/iarm)"or  as 
an  infinitive  (thou  shalt  not  hnoxo  how  to  charm  or  conjure  it  aiuay).  This 
construction  has  the  advantage  of  creating  a  more  perfect  correspondence 
between  this  word  and  the  similar  verbal  form  (^^??)  with  which  the 
next  clause  ends.  Grotius  and  Clericus  appear  to  regard  "l^*L^'  as  a  mere 
poetical  equivalent  to  day,  which  is  highly  improbable  and  not  at  all 
sustained  by  usage.— J«J  i/iere  shall  Jail  \qjon  thee  (a  still  stronger 
expression  than  the  one  before  it,  there  shall  come  upon  thee)  ruin. 
According  to  the  modern  lexicographers,  the  noun  itself  means  fall, 
but  in  its  figurative  apphcation  to  destruction  or  calamity.  It  occurs 
only  here  and  in  Ezek.  vii.  26.— Thou  shalt  not  be  "able  to  avrrt 
it,  or  resolving  the  detached  Hebrew  clauses  into  one  English  period, 
which  thou  shalt  not  he  able  to  avert.  The  exact  meaninc  of  the  last 
word  is  atone  for,  expiate,  and  in  this  connection,  to  avert  by  expiation, 
whether  in  the  strict  sense  of  atoning  sacrifice  or  in  the  wider  one  of  satis- 
faction and  propitiation.  If  we  assume  a  personification  of  the  evil,  the 
verb  may  mean  io  appeaae,  as  in  Gen.  xxxii.  21,  Prov.  xvi.  14.  In' any 
case,  the  clause  describes  the  threatened  judgment  as  inexorable  and  inevi- 
table.— And  there  shall  come  upon  thee  suddenhj  a  crash, — or  as  J.  D. 
Michaelis  renders  it,  a  crash  in;/  fall,  a  common  metaphor  for  sudden  ruin] 
{which)  thou  shalt  not  know.  This  may  either  mean,  of  which  thou  shalt 
have  no  previous  experience,  or  of  which  thou  shalt  have  no  previous 
expectation.  The  former  meaning  is  the  one  most  readily  suggested  by 
the  words.  The  latter  may  be  justified  by  the  analog}'  of  JobTx.  5,  who 
removeth  the  mountains  and  thty  know  not,  which  can  only  mean  that  he 
removes  them  suddenly  or  unawares.  Because  the  same  verb  *yiri  in  the 
first  clause  governs  a  following  word  {thou  shalt  not  know  its  dawn,  or  how 
to  conjure  it  away),  Lowth  adopts  Seeker's  hint  that  a  similar  dependent 
word  has  here  been  lost,  but  does  not  venture  to  determine  what  it  was, 
though  he  thinks  it  may  have  been  HJDO  ns^*,  as  in  Jer.  xi.  11. 

12.  Stand  noio  !  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  N3  is  not  a  particle  of 
time  but  of  entreaty,  very  often  corresponding  to  /  pray,  or  if  i/ou  please. 
In  this  case  it  indicates  a  kind  of  concession  to  the  people,  if  they  still 
choose  to  try  the  virtue  of  their  superstitious  arts  which  he  had  already 
denounced  as  worthless.  Some  interpreters  have  gone  too  far  in  repre- 
senting this  passage  as  characterised  by  a  tone  of  biting  sarcasm.— Stand 
now  in  thy  spells  (or  charms).  Yitrlnga  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  custo- 
mary standing  posture  of  astrologers,  conjurers,  &c.     Others  understand 


200  ISAIAH  XL]  J  J.  ;Ver.  13. 

the  verb  to  moan  standfast,  be  firm  and  coiiriigeous.  lint  the  modem  writers 
generally  follow  Lowtb  in  uuderstandinf,'  it  to  mean  pcrsust  or  persevere,  which 
of  course  requires  the  preposition  to  be  taken  in  its  usual  proper  sense  of 
in.— Persist  now  in  tit;/  si>tlls  nnd  in  the  tibunJance  of  thy  charms,  the  same 
nouns  that  are  joined  above  in  ver.  0.  In  nhich  thou  hast  laboured. 
Gi'senius  in  his  Grammar  (§  121,  2)  mentions  this  as  one  of  the  only  two 
cases  in  which  the  Hebrew  relative  is  governeil  directly  by  a  preposition, 
in  which  instead  of  which  in  them,  tlio  usual  idiomatic  combination.  But 
Hitzig  and  Ewald  do  away  with  this  exception,  by  supposing  the  particle  to 
be  dependent  on  the  verb  at  the  beginning,  and  the  relative  directly  on  the 
verb  that  follows :  persist  in  thai  which  (or  in  that  re^pectiwj  which)  thou 
hast  laboured  {^or  wearied  thyself ;  see  above,  on  chap,  xliii.  "I'l)  from  thy 
youth.  This  may  either  mean  of  old,  or  more  specifically,  since  the  earliest 
period  of  thy  national  existence.  The  antiquity  of  occult  arts,  and  above 
all  of  astrology',  in  Babylon,  is  attested  by  various  profane  writers.  Diodorus 
Siculus  indeed  derives  them  from  Egypt,  and  describes  the  Chaldees,  or 
astrologers  of  Babylon,  as  EgA'ptian  colonists.  But  as  this  last  is  cer- 
tainly erroneous  (see  above  on  ver.  1),  the  other  assertion  can  have  no 
authority.  The  Babylonians  are  reported  by  the  same  and  other  writers 
to  have  carried  back  their  own  antiquity,  as  proved  by  recorded  scientific 
observations,  to  an  extravagant  and  foolish  length,  to  which  some  think 
there  is  allusion  hero  in  the  expression /rom  thy  youth. — Perhips  thou  wilt 
be  able  to  succeed,  or  keep  thyself,  the  verb  commonly  translated  profit. 
(See  above,  chap.  xliv.  10.)  *^X  originally  means  t/no<  or  whether  not, 
but  in  usage  corresponds  more  nearly  to  perhaps  than  it  does  to  the  con- 
ditional compound,  if  so  he,  which  is  the  common  English  Version  hero. 
This  faint  suggestion  of  a  possibility  is  more  expressive  than  a  positive 
denial. — Perhaps  thou  wilt  yrow  8tron<i,  or  prevail,  as  the  ancient  versions 
render  it;  or  resist  as  llosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  and  Ewald  explain  it  from  an 
Arabic  analogy  ;  or  terrify  (thine  adversary-),  as  Gesenius  explains  it  from  the 
analogy  of  chap.  ii.  19,21.  (Compare  Ps.  x.  1ft,  and  Job.  xiii.  25).  In  cither 
case  the  word  is  a  specification  of  the  more  general  term  succeed  or  profit. 

18.  Thou  art  wearied  in  the  multitude  of  thy  counsel,  not  merely  weary  o/" 
it,  but  exhausted  /»;/  it,  and  in  the  verj'  act  of  using  it.  "^l^riyy  seems  to  be 
a  singular  noun  with  a  plural  suffix,  n  combination  which  may  be  supposed 
to  have  arisen,  either  from  the  want  of  any  constnict  plural  form  in  this  case, 
or  from  a  designed  assimilation  with  the  plurals  in  ver.  12.  As  3"^  may 
denote  either  numerical  multitude  or  aggivgate  abundance,  it  is  often  con- 
strued with  a  singular,  for  instance  in  Ps.  v.  H,  lii.  0,  Isa.  xxxvii.  21.  By 
counsel  we  are  not  to  understand  the  computations  or  conferences  of  the 
astronomers,  but  all  the  devices  of  the  government  for  self-defence.  The 
German  writers  have  introduced  an  idiom  of  their  own  into  the  first  clause 
wholly  foreign  from  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  language,  by  making  it  con- 
ditional, which  Noyes  has  copied  by  giving  it  the  fonn  of  an  interrogation  : 
art  thou  weary  f  Sec.  The  original  form  is  that  of  a  short  independent 
proposition. —  fM  now  (or  pray  let)  them  stand  and  save  thee.  Wo  maj 
take  stand  cither  in  the  same  sense  which  it  has  above  in  ver.  12,  or  in 
that  of  appearing,  coming  forward,  presenting  themselves.  The  nso  of 
TJIJ  in  the  sense  of  rising,  is  erroneously  alleged  as  a  peculiar  feature  in  the 
diction  of  these  Later  Prophecies. — The  subject  of  the  verbs  is  then  defined. 
'J he  dividcn  of  the  heavens,  i.  e.  the  astrologers,  so  called  because  thoy 
divided  the  heavens  into  houses  with  a  view  to  tht-ir  prognostications. 
Honderson's  reference  to  the  twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac  is  too  restricted. 


Ver.  14. J  ISAIAH  XL  VI I.  207 

The  chetliibh,  or  textual  reading  (1"'2i^),  is  regarded  by  some  as  an  old  form 
of  the  plural  coriKlruct,  but  by  others  as  the  third  person  plur;il  of  the 
preterite,  agreeing  with  the  relative  pronoun  understood  {who  divide). 
Kinichi  regards  division  as  a  figure  for  decision  or  determination,  which  is 
wholly  unnecessary.  Some  read  *!}?n,  and  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  de- 
rivative noun  in  ver.  1 2 ;  while  others  trace  it  to  the  Arabic  root  i^ 
and  suppose  the  phrase  to  mean  those  who  know  the  heavens.  AH  admit, 
however,  that  the  general  sense  is  correctly  given  by  the  Septuagint  (arrrjo- 
Xoyoi  ToZ  oupuvou)  and  the  Vulgate  {augiires  coeli).  The  same  class  of  per- 
sons is  then  spoken  of  as  star-gazers,  an  English  phrase  which  well  expresses 
the  peculiar  force  of  D^Tn  followed  by  the  preposition  ?.  Some,  however, 
give  the  former  word  its  frequent  sense  of  .srcr.s-  or  prophets,  and  recrnrcl 
what  follows  as  a  limiting  or  qualifying  term,  the  whole  corresponding  to 
the  English  phrase  slar-proplwts,^  i.  e.  such  as  prophesy  by  means  of  the 
stars.  The  next  phrase  does  not  mean  making  knotvn  the  new  moons,  for 
these  returned  at  stated  intervals  and  needed  no  pi'ognosticator  to  reveal 
them.  The  sense  is  either  at  the  nnv  moons,  or  hj  means  of  the  nno  moons, 
i.  e.  the  changes  of  the  moons,  of  which  the  former  is  the  simpler  explana- 
tion.— Interpreters  are  much  divided  as  to  the  w.iv  in  which  the  remaining 
words  of  this  verse  are  to  be  connected  with  what  goes  before.  Aben  Ezra 
and  Yitringa  make  the  clause  dependent  on  the  verb  save  :  "  Let  them  save 
them  from  (the  things)  which  are  about  to  come  upon  thee."  The  only 
objections  to  this  construction  are  the  distance  of  the  words  thus  connected 
from  each  other,  and  the  absolute  sense  which  it  puts  upon  D''y^'iio  by 
removing  its  object.  The  modern  writers,  with  a  very  few  exceptions,  con- 
nect this  participle  with  what  follows,  making  knoitm  at  the  new  moons  luhat 
shall  come  upon  thee.  The  IP  may  then  be  partitive  {some  of  the  things,  &c.),  or 
indicate  the  subject  of  the  revelation  {of,  i.  e.  concerning  ichat  shall  come,  tkc.) 
To  the  former  Yitringa  objects,  that  the  astrologers  would  undertake  of 
course  to  reveal  not  only  some  but  all  things  still  future.  But  Jarchi  sug- 
gests, that  the  new  moon  could  atl'ord  only  partial  information  ;  and  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  that  this  limited  pretension  would  afford  the  astrologers  a  pretext 
and  apology  for  frequent  failures.  But  the  other  construction  is  now  com- 
monly preferred,  except  that  Ewald  gives  to  "l?r*^^P  the  meaning  ivhcncc,  i.  e. 
from  what  source  or  quarter  these  things  are  to  come  upon  thee. 

14.  Behold  they  are  like  dtihble,  fire  has  burned  them  {the  Babylonian 
astrologers).  The  constructiim  given  by  Gesenius  {stubble  which  the  fire 
consumes)  is  inconsistent  with  the  plural  suffix.  Behold  brings  their  destruc- 
tion into  view  as  something  present.  It  is  on  this  account  more  natural, 
as  well  as  more  exact,  to  give  the  verbs  a  past  or  present  form,  as  Ewald 
docs,  than  to  translate  them  in  the  future.  He  not  only  prophesies  that 
they  sh.all  be  burnt,  but  sees  them  burning.  The  comparison  with  stubble 
seems  intended  to  suggest  that  they  are  worthless  and  combustible,  whose 
end  is  to  be  burned  (Hcb.  vi.  8).  At  the  same  time  a  contrast  is  designed, 
as  Kimchi  well  observes,  between  the  burning  of  stubble  and  the  burning 
of  wood,  the  former  being  more  complete  and  rapid  than  the  latter. — They 
cannot  delirer  thcmselresfrom  the  hand  {i.e.  the  power)  of  the  flame.  Gese- 
nius and  most  of  the  later  writers  translate  DL'*^:  thdr  life;  Hitzig  and 
Ewald  still  more  rigidly,  their  soul.  But  the  reflexive  sense  themselves  is 
not  only  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  chap.  xlvi.  2,  but  required  by  the  con- 
text. There  is  at  least  much  less  significance  and  point  in  saying  that  they 
cannot  save  their  lives,  than  in  saving  that  thev  cannot  even  save  them- 


208  ISA  I A II. XL  VI  I.  [Ver.  15. 

selves,  much  less  their  votaries  and  depemlents. — The  lust  clause  coutains 
a  negative  description  of  the  fire  luenlioued  in  the  first.    Of  this  description 
there  are  two  interpretations.    Grotius,  Clericus,  Vitringa,  Lowth,  Gesenius, 
and  ilaurer,  understand  it  to  mean  that  the  destruction  of  the  fuel  will  he 
60  complete,  that  nothing  will  he  lefl  at  which  a  man  can  sit  and  warm 
himself.     But  as  this   gratuitously  gives  to  I'^  the  sense  ihcre  is  not  left, 
without  the  least  authority  from  usage,  Ewald  and  Knohcl  agree  with  J.  D. 
Michaelis  and  others  in  explaining  it  to  mean,  {thin  fiir)  is  tiot  a  cual  {at 
tchicli)  to  uann  one's  self,  a  fire  to  sit  before,  hut  a  devouring  and  consuming 
conflagi-ation.     The  only  difhculty  in  the  way  of  this   interpretation  is  a 
slight  one,  namely,  that  it  takes  TOni  in  the  sense  of  a  coal-fire,  and  not  a 
single  coal.     With  either  of  these  expositions  of  the  whole  clause  may  he 
reconciled  a  ditVertnt  interpretation  of  the  word  dpljl?  proposed  hy  Saadias, 
and  independently  of  him  hy  Cocctius.     These  writers  give  the  word  the 
sense  which  it  invariahly  has  in  every  other  place  where  it  occurs,  viz.  their 
bread.     (See  Job  xxx.  4,  Prov.  xxx.  25,  Ezek.  iv.  13,  xii.  19,  Hos.  ix.  4.) 
The  whole  expression  then  means,  that  it  is  not  a  common  fire  for  baking 
bread,  or,  on  the  other  supposition,  that  there  are  not  coals  enough  left  for 
that  purpose.     The  phrase  OPD^  ri?n3  {coal  of  their  Inead)  presents  a  harsh 
and  unusual  combination,  rendered  less  so,  however,  by  the  use  of  both 
words  in  chap.  xliv.  11).     This  construction  is  approved  by  Ilosenmiiller; 
but  the  other  modern  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  in  making  20^7  the  infini- 
tive of  D'pn  (chap.  xliv.  15,  IG)  with  a  preposition,  analogous  in  form  to 
D333n  from  l.^n  (chap.  xxx.  18).    One  manuscript  has  D^0<)  which  is  nearer 
to  the  usual  analogy-  of  this  class  of  verbs,  but  embarrasses  the  syntax  with 
a  pleonastic  sulKx.-— The  general  sense  of  sudden,  rapid,  and  complete  de- 
struction is  not  affected  by  these  minor  questions  of  grammatical  analysis. 
15.   Thus  are  iheij  to  thee,  i.e.  such  is  their  fate,  you  see  what  has  be- 
come of  them.     The  "1?  is  not  superfluous,  as  Gesenius  asserts,  although 
foreign  from  our  idiom.     It  suggests  the  additional  idea,  that  the  person 
addressed  was  interested  in  them,  and  a  witness  of  their  ruin.  —  M'llh  rcsju-ct 
to  ivhom  thou   hast  laboured.     This  may  either  mean   vilh   whom   or  for 
whom ;  or  both  may  be  included  in  the  general  idea  that  these  had  been  the 
object    and   occasion   of  her  labours.  —  77ii/  dealers  (or  traders)   from  thy 
youth.     This  is  commonly  regarded  as  explanatory  of  the  foregoing  clause. 
Thus  the  Enghsh  Version,  they  uith  whom  thou  hast  laboured,  ireu  thy 
nterchanis,  Sec.     It  then  becomes  a  question  whether  these  are  called  traders 
in  the  literal  and  ordinary  sense,  or  at  least  in  that  of  natitmal  allies  and 
negotiators;  or  whether  the  epithet  is  given  in  contempt  to  the  astrologers 
and  wise  men  of  the  foregoing  context,  as  trallicking  or  dealing  in  imposture. 
J.  I).  Michaelis  supposes  them  to  be  described  as  travelling  dealers,  i.e. 
pedlars  and  hawkers,  who  removed   from  place  to  place,  lest  tluir  frauds 
should  be  discovered.     He  iven  compares  them  with  the  gipsy  fortune- 
tellers of  our  own  day,  but  admits  that  the  astrologers  of  IJabylonia  held  a 
very  diflerent  position  in  society.    Against  any  application  of  the  last  clause 
to  this  order,  it  may  be  (objected  that  the  preceding  verse,  of  which  this  is 
a  direct  continuation,  represents  them  as  already  utterly  consumed.     The 
true  solution  of  the  difliculty  seems  to  be  afforded  by  the  Masoretic  inter- 
punction  of  the  sentence,  which  connects  "n'T^np  not  with  what  precedes,  but 
with  what  follows.     According  to  this  arrangement,  we  are  not  to  read  and 
so  are  thy  dealers,  or  eren  thy  dealers,  but  thy  dealers  from  thy  youth  wander 
each  his  own  way.    We  ha\e  then  two  classes  introduced,  and  two  distinct 


ISAIAH  XLVIII.  209 

events  predicted.  As  if  he  had  said,  Thy  astrologers,  &c.,  arc  utterly 
destroyed,  and  as  for  thy  dealers,  they  wander  home,  &c.,  widely  different 
in  fate,  but  both  alike  in  this,  that  they  leave  thee  defenceless  in  the  hour 
of  extremity.  Thij  traders  may  then  be  taken  either  in  its  strict  sense,  as 
denoting  foreign  merchants,  or  in  its  wider  sense,  as  comprehending  all, 
whether  states  or  individuals,  with  whom  she  had  intercourse,  commercial 
or  political.  Ewald  revives  Houbigant's  interpretation  of  the  word  as 
meaning  sorcerers,  in  order  to  sustain  which  by  the  Arabic  analogy,  he 
seems  inclined  to  read  '-lITint^*,  without  the  least  necessity  or  warrant. — 
These  are  described  as  thinking  only  of  providing  for  their  own  security. 
(Compare  chap,  xiii.  14,  xliii.  14.)  Koch  to  his  oiiii  quarter,  side,  direc- 
tion; substantially  synonymous  with  VJ3  l?^'?!!^  (Ezek.  i.  9,  12),  and  other 
phrases,  all  meaning  strabjlu  before  him,  Avithout  turning  to  the  right  hand 
or  the  left, — {then  u-ander  or  hare  n-andered),  a  term  implying  not  only 
llight,  but  confusion.  The  plural  form  agrees  with  the  subject  understood, 
and  not  with  the  distributive  expression  ^^''^  by  which  that  subject  is  defined 
and  qualified. — There  is  no  one  helpin^i  thee,  or,  still  more  strongly,  saving 
thee,  thou  hast  no  saviour ;  with  particular  reference  to  those  just  men- 
tioned, who,  instead  of  thinking  upon  her,  or  bringing  her  assistance,  would 
be  wholly  engrossed  by  a  sense  of  their  own  danger  and  the  eflbrt  to  escape 
it.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing,  with  Hitzig,  that  the  image  of  a  great 
conflagration  is  still  present  to  the  writer's  mind,  and  that  no  one  helps  (or 
saves)  thee  means  specifically  no  one  quenches  thee.  The  figurative  dress 
would  rather  seem  to  have  been  laid  aside,  in  order  to  express  the  naked 
truth  more  plainly. 


CHAPTER  XLYIII. 

From  his  digression  with  respect  to  the  causes  and  eflfects  of  the  catas- 
trophe of  Babylon,  the  Prophet  now  returns  to  his  more  general  themes, 
and  winds  up  the  first  great  division  of  the  Later  Prophecies  by  a  reiteration 
of  the  same  truths  and  arguments  which  run  through  the  previous  portion 
of  it,  with  some  variations  and  additions  which  will  be  noticed  in  the  proper 
place.  The  disproportionate  prominence  given  to  the  Babylonish  exile  and 
the  Hbcration  from  it,  in  most  modern  expositions  of  the  passage,  has  pro- 
duced the  same  confusion  and  the  same  necessity  of  assuming  arbitrarj^ 
combinations  and  transitions,  as  in  other  cases  which  have  been  already 
stated.  The  length  to  which  this  false  h^ijothesis  has  influenced  the  prac- 
tice of  interpreters  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  one  of  the  most  recent 
English  writers  describes  this  chapter  as  "renewed  assurances  of  restora- 
tion from  Babylon."  This  is  less  surprising  in  the  present  case,  however; 
because  the  Prophet,  in  the  close  as  in  the  opening  of  this  first  book,  does 
accommodate  his  language  to  the  feelings  and  condition  of  the  Jews  in  exile, 
though  the  truths  which  he  inculcates  are  still  of  a  general  and  comprehensive 
nature. 

Although  Israel  is  God's  chosen  and  peculiar  people,  he  is  in  himself 
unworthy  of  the  honour  and  unfaithful  to  the  trust,  vers.  1,  2.  Former 
predictions  had  been  uttered  expressly  to  prevent  his  ascribing  the  event  to 
other  gods,  vers.  3-5.  For  the  same  reason  new  predictions  will  be  uttered 
now,  of  events  which  have  never  been  distinctly  foretold,  vers.  G-8.  God's 
continued  favour  to  his  people  has  no  reference  to  merit  upon  their  part,  but 

VOL.  II.  O 


210  ISAIAH  XLVIII.  [Ver.  1. 

is  the  fruit  of  his  own  sovereign  mercy,  and  intondtd  to  promote  his  own 
designs,  vers.  9-11.  He  again  asserts  his  own  exclusive  deity,  as  proved  by 
the  creation  of  the  world,  by  the  prediction  of  events  still  future,  and  espe- 
cially by  the  raising  up  of  Cyrus,  as  a  promised  instrument  to  execute  his 
puq)ose,  vers.  12-lG.  The  suflerings  of  Israel  are  the  fruit  of  his  own  sin,  but 
his  prosperity  and  glory,  of  God's  sovereign  grace,  vers.  17-19.  The  book 
closes  as  it  opened  with  a  promise  of  deliverance  from  exile,  accompanied, 
in  this  case,  by  a  solemn  limitation  of  the  promise  to  its  proper  objects, 
vers.  20-22. 

It  is  evident  that  these  are  the  same  elements  which  enter  into  all  the 
Later  Prophecies,  so  far  as  we  have  yet  examined  them,  and  that  these 
elements  are  here  combined  in  very  much  the  usual  proportions,  although 
not  in  precisely  the  same  shape  and  order.  The  most  novel  feature  of  this 
chapter  is  the  fulness  with  which  one  principal  design  of  prophecy,  and  the 
connection  between  Israel's  sufl'erings  and  his  sins,  are  stated. 

The  confidence  with  which  the  most  dissimilar  hypotheses  may  be  main- 
tained when  resting  upon  no  determinate  or  valid  principle,  is  forciMy  exem- 
plified in  this  case  by  the  fact,  that  Vitringa  and  ydimidius  both  divide  the 
chapter  into  two  parts  relating  to  two  difierent  periods  of  history  ;  but  the 
foiTuer  applies  vers.  1-11  to  the  Jews  of  Isaiah's  time,  and  vers.  12-22  to 
those  of  the  captivity;  while  the  latter  applies  vers.  1-15  to  the  Jews  of  the 
captivity,  and  vers.  lG-22  to  those  contemporarv-  with  our  Saviour.  This 
divergency,  both  as  to  the  place  of  the  dividing  line,  and  as  to  the  chrono- 
logical relation  of  the  parts,  is  a  sutlicient  proof  that  the  hypothesis,  com- 
mon to  both,  of  a  reference  to  two  successive  periods,  is  altogether  arbitrary, 
and  with  equal  reason  might  be  varied  indefinitely  by  supposing  that  the 
first  part  treats  of  the  the  Apostolic  age,  and  the  second  of  the  period  of 
the  Reformation;  or  the  first  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  last  of  the  Mil- 
lennium; or  the  first  of  the  French  Revolution,  and  the  last  of  the  Day  of 
Judgment.  The  only  safe  assumption  is,  that  the  chapter  contains  general 
truths  with  special  illustrations  and  examples. 

1.  Hear  this,  not  exclusively  what  follows  or  what  goes  before,  but  this 
whole  series  of  arguments  and  exhortations.  This  is  a  formula  by  which 
Isaiah  frequently  resumes  and  continues  his  discourse.  Because  the  verb 
occurs  at  the  beginning  of  chap.  xlvi.  12,  Hitzig  infers  that  these  two  chapters 
originally  came  together,  and  that  the  forty-seventh  was  afterwards  introduced 
between  them,  which  seems  frivolous. — 0  house  of  Jacob  the  {men)  called 
by  the  name  of  Israel,  a  periphrasis  for  Israelites  or  members  of  the  an- 
cieut  chtirch. — And  from  the  waters  of  Jttdah  they  have  come  out.  Bj'  an 
easy  transition,  of  perpetual  occumnce  in  Isaiah,  the  construction  is  con- 
continued  in  the  third  person  ;  as  if  the  Prophet,  after  addressing  them 
directly,  had  proceeded  to  describe  them  to  the  bystanders.  The  people, 
by  a  natural  figure,  are  described  as  streams  from  the  fountain  of  Judah. 
(Compare  chap.  li.  1 ,  and  Ps.  Ixviii.  27.)  Gesenius  and  othtr  German  writers 
fasten  on  this  mention  of  Judah  as  a  national  progenitor,  as  betraying  a  later 
date  of  composition  than  the  days  of  Isaiah.  But  this  kind  of  reasoning 
proceeds  upon  the  t-hailow  and  erroneous  supposition  that  the  application  of 
this  name  to  the  whole  people  was  the  result  of  accidtiital  causes  at  a  com- 
paratively recent  period,  whereas  it  forms  part  of  a  chnnfjo  designed  from 
the  beginning,  and  developed  by  a  gradual  process,  through  the  whole  course 
of  their  history.  Even  i'.i  patriarchal  times  the  pre-eminence  of  Judah  was 
determined.  From  liim  the  Messiah  was  expected  to  descend  (Gen.  xlix.  10). 
To  him  the  first  rank  was  assigned  in  the  exodus,  the  journey  through  the 


Ver.  2.]  ISAIAH  XLVIII.  211 

desert,  and  the  occnpation  of  the  promised  land.  In  Lis  line  the  royal 
power  was  first  permanently  established.  To  him,  thou^di  deserted  by  five- 
sixths  of  the  tribes,  the  honours  and  privileges  of  the  theocracy  were  still 
continued;  so  that  long  before  the  Babylonish  exile  or  the  downfall  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  the  names  of  Israel  and  Judah  were  convertible, 
not  as  political  distinctions,  but  as  designations  of  the  chosen  people,  the 
theocracy,  the  ancient  church.  In  this  sense  Israelite  and  Jew  were  as 
really  synonymous  when  Isaiah  wrote,  as  they  are  now  in  common  par- 
lance.— Those  sivearing  hi/  the  name  of  Jehovah,  i.e.  swearing  by  him  as 
their  God,  and  thereby  not  only  acknowledging  his  deity,  but  solemnly 
avouching  their  relation  to  him.  (See  above,  on  chap.  xlv.  23.) — And  of  the 
God  of  Israel  make  mention,  not  in  conversation  merely,  but  as  a  religious 
act,  implying  public  recognition  of  his  being  and  authority,  in  which  sense 
the  same  Hebrew  phi'ase  with  unimportant  variations  in  its  form  is  frequently 
used  elsewhere.  (For  examples  of  the  ver\'  form  which  here  occurs,  see  Josh, 
xxiii.  7  ;  Ps.  xx.  8,  xlv.  18.) — A'oi  in  truth  and  not  in  righteousness,  up- 
rightness, sincerity.  It  is  not  necessary  to  infer  from  these  words,  that 
the  Prophet's  language  is  addressed  to  a  distinct  class  of  the  Jews,  or  to  the 
Jews  of  any  one  exclusive  period,  his  own,  or  that  of  the  captivity,  or  that 
of  Christ.  The  clause  is  an  indirect  reiteration  of  the  doctrine  so  con- 
tinually taught  throughout  these  proi^hccies,  and  afterwards  repeated  in  this 
■\ery  chapter,  that  God's  choice  of  Israel  and  preservation  of  him  was  no 
proof  of  merit  upon  his  part,  nor  even  an  act  of  mere  compassion  upon 
God's  part,  but  the  necessary  means  to  an  appointed  end.  The  reference 
therefore  here  is  not  so  much  to  individual  hypocrisy  or  unbelief,  as  to  the 
general  defect  of  worthiness  or  merit  in  the  body.  Some,  supposing  the 
whole  emphasis  to  rest  upon  this  last  clause,  understand  what  goes  before 
as  descriptive  of  outward  profession  and  pretension,  and  for  that  reason 
give  to  the  passive  participle  Cfr^^p?  the  reflexive  sense  of  calling  them- 
selves ;  which  is  unnecessary  and  without  analog}'  in  the  other  terms  of 
description.  They  were  really  called  by  the  name  of  Israel,  and  that  not 
only  by  themselves  and  one  another,  but  by  God.  Almost  equally  erroneous, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  Hitzig's  supposition,  that  this  last  clause  is  an  obiter 
dictum  not  essential  to  the  sense.  Both  parts  are  equally  essential,  the 
description  of  the  Jews  as  the  chosen  people  of  Jehovah,  and  the  denial  of 
their  merit :  for  the  error  into  which  they  were  continually  falling  was  the 
error  of  sacrificing  one  of  these  gi'eat  doctrines  to  the  other,  or  imagining 
that  they  were  incompatible.  It  was  necessary  to  the  Prophet's  puqjose 
that  the  people  should  never  forget  either,  but  believe  them  both.  From 
all  tills  may  be  readily  inferred  the  shallowness  and  blindness  of  the  "higher 
criticism,"  which  talks  of  the  accumulation  of  descriptive  epithets  in  this 
place  as  a  rhetorical  peculiarity  symptomatic  of  a  later  age ;  whereas 
it  is  a  distinct  enumeration  of  the  theocratical  prerogatives  of  Israel,  and 
one  essential  to  the  writer's  purpose. 

2.  Fur  from  the  Holy  City  they  are  called.  The  same  name  is  given  to 
Jerusalem  below  (chap.  li.  1),  and  also  in  the  later  books  (Dan.  ix.  24, 
Keh.  xii.  1)  and  the  New  Testament  (Matt.  iv.  5,  xxvii.  53).  It  is  so 
called  as  the  seat  of  the  true  religion,  the  earthly  residence  of  God,  and 
the  centre  of  the  church.  That  the  reference  is  not  to  mere  locality  is 
plain  from  the  application  of  the  name  to  the  whole  people.  The  "•?  at  the 
beginning  of  this  verse  has  somewhat  perplexed  interpreters.  Cocceius 
makes  it  introduce  the  proof  or  reason  of  the  words  immediately  preceding: 
"  not  in  truth  and  not  in  righteousness,  because  they  call  themselves  after 


212  ISA! All  XLVJIT.  [Veb.  8,  A. 

the  Holy  City,"  instead  of  cnllinj^  themselves  by  the  name  of  God.  This 
description  would  certainly  be  api)ro])riate  to  ritualists  and  all  who  let  the 
Church  usurp  the  place  of  its  great  Head.  But  this  interpretation  is  pre- 
cluded, as  Vitringa  has  observed,  by  what  immediately  follows,  and  upon 
the  <iod  of  Israel  rely,  which  certainly  would  not  have  been  adduced  us  a 
proof  of  insincerity  or  even  imperfection.  Some  connect  the  clauses  in  a 
different  manner,  by  giving  '3  the  sense  of  alllioutfh  :  •'  not  in  truth  and 
not  in  righteousness,  although  they  are  called  after  the  Holy  City,"  But 
the  sense  thus  obtained  is  dearly  purchased  by  assuming  so  unusual  and 
dubious  a  meaning  of  the  particle.  The  safest,  because  the  simplest  course, 
is  to  take  it  in  its  ordinars*  sense  of  for,  because,  and  to  regard  it  as  con- 
tinuing the  previous  description,  or  rather  as  assuming  it  after  a  momentary 
interruption,  for  which  reason ybr  is  used  instead  of  and.  The  connection 
may  be  thus  rendered  clear  by  a  paraphrase  :  "I  speak  to  those  who  bear 
the  name  of  Israel  and  worship  Israel's  God,  however  insincerely  and  im- 
perfectly ;  for  they  are  still  the  chosen  people,  and  as  such  entitled  to  rely 
upon  Jehovah."  This  last  is  then  descriptive  not  of  a  mere  professed  nor 
of  a  real  yet  presumptuous  reliance,  but  of  the  prerogative  of  Israel,  con- 
sidered as  the  church  or  chosen  people,  a  prerogative  not  forfeited  by  their 
imfaithfulness,  so  long  as  its  continuance  was  necessarv-  to  the  end  for 
which  it  was  originally  granted.  The  false  interpretations  of  the  passage 
have  arisen  from  applying  it  directly  to  the  faith  or  unbelief  of  individuals, 
in  v.hich  case  there  appears  to  be  an  incongruity  between  the  parts  of  the 
description  ;  but  as  soon  as  we  apply  it  to  the  body,  this  apparent  incon- 
gruity is  done  away,  it  being  not  only  consistent  with  Isaiah's  purpose,  but 
a  necessary  part  of  it,  to  hold  up  the  prerogatives  of  Israel  as  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  all  merit  upon  their  part. — Jehovah  of  hosts  (I'.v)  his  nuine. 
These  words  are  added  to  identify  the  object  of  reliance  more  completely, 
as  the  lieing  who  was  called  the  God  of  Israel  and  Jehovah  of  hosts.  At 
the  same  time  they  suggest  the  attributes  implied  in  both  parts  of  the  name. 
As  if  he  had  said,  they  rely  upon  the  God  of  Israel,  whom  they  acknowledge 
as  an  independent  and  eternal  Being,  and  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe. 

3.  The  first  (or  former  things)  since  then  I  have  declared.  That  is,  I  pro- 
phesied of  old  the  events  which  have  already  taken  place.  For  the  sense 
of  the  particular  expressions,  see  above  on  chap.  xlv.  21,  xlvi.  10.  There 
is  no  abrujtt  transition  here,  as  some  interpreters  asume.  This  verse  asserts 
God's  prescience,  not  absolutely  as  in  other  cases,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
explaining  why  he  had  so  carefully  predicted  certain  future  events.  It  can 
be  fully  understood,  therefore,  only  in  connection  with  what  goes  before 
and  follows. — And  out  of  my  mouth  they  went  forth.  Some  regard  this  as 
a  proof  that  ri13L"N"i  means  former  prophecies  and  not  events;  but  even  the 
\nttvr  might  be  figuratively  said  to  have  gone  out  of  his  mouth,  as  having 
been  predicted  by  him. — And  I  cause  them  to  U  heard,  a  synonymous  ex- 
pression.—  Sudilenly  I  do  {(hem)  and  they  come  to  jtass.^Wl  this  is  intro- 
ductorj'  to  what  follows  respecting  the  design  of  prophecy.  The  sense  is 
not  simply,  I  forel«ll  things  to  come,  but  I  foretell  things  to  come  for  a  par- 
ticular purpose,  which  is  now  to  be  exjilaincd. 

4.  From  my  knovlntj.  This  may  either  mean  because  I  knno  or  since  I 
knew,  or  the  last  may  be  included  in  the  first,  as  in  chap,  xliii.  -1.  —  That 
thou  art  hard.  This  is  commonly  considered  an  ellipsis  for  ^^"'^^'"P  ^Kz«'k. 
iii.  7),  or  ^^irn;j*(5  Hmt.  ix.  (5),  hard-hearted  or  st itV- necked  ;  more  pro- 
li.ibly  the  latter,  as  the  sense  required  by  the  context  is  not  so  much  that 
of  inscDKibiiity  as  that  of  obstiuata  pcrverscncss.     The  same  idea  is  ex- 


Ver.  0-7.J  ISAIAH  XLVIII.  213 

pressed  still  more  strongly  by  the  following  words,  and  an  iron  sinew  (is) 
thy  neck.  The  substitution  of  bar  for  sinew,  which  is  elsewhere  the  invari- 
able sense  of  T'^,  is  not  only  gratuitous,  but  inexact  and  enfeebling. — 
A7id  thy  forehead  brass.  The  hardening  of  the  face  or  forehead,  which  is 
sometimes  used  in  a  good  sense  {e.g.  chap.  1.  7),  here  denotes  shameless 
persistency  in  opposition  to  the  truth.  The  allusion  is  not,  us  Vitringa 
supposes,  to  the  colour  of  brass,  but  to  its  hardness,  with  some  reference, 
as  Ivnobel  thinks,  to  the  habits  of  animals  which  push  or  butt  with  the 
forehead. 

5.  There/ore  I  told  thee  long  ago.  This  is  often  the  force  of  the  conjunc- 
tion and  after  a  conditional  clause  or  sentence.  Because  I  knew  thee  to  be 
such,  and  I  told  thee,  i.e.  therefore  I  told  thee. — Before  it  comes  I  have  let 
thee  hear  (it),  lest  thou  say,  My  idol  did  them,  i.e.  did  the  things  before  re- 
ferred to  collectively  in  the  singular.  The  Hebrew  word  for  idol,  from  the 
double  meaning  of  its  root,  suggests  the  two  ideas  of  an  image  and  a  tor- 
ment or  vexation. — 3[y  graven  image  and  my  molten  image  ordered  them, 
i.  e.  called  them  into  being. — Gousset  takes  '3p?  in  the  sense  of  7ny  libation 
or  drink-offering. 

6.  ThoH  hast  heard  (the  prediction),  see  all  of  it  (accomplished).  And 
ye  (idolaters  or  idols),  uHl  not  ye  declare,  the  same  word  used  above  for 
the  prediction  of  events,  and  therefore  no  doubt  meaning  here,  will  not  yc 
predict  something  '?  This  is  Hitzig's  explanation  of  the  words  ;  but  most 
interpreters  suppose  the  sense  to  be,  will  you  not  acknouledge  (or  bear  wit- 
ness) that  these  things  v.ere  predicted  by  Jehovah  ?  In  favour  of  the  first 
is  its  taking  ^^il^  in  the  sense  which  it  has  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  also 
the  analogy  of  chap.  xli.  22,  23,  where  the  very  same  challenge  is  given  in 
nearly  the  same  form  ;  to  which  may  be  added  the  sudden  change  to  the 
plural  form,  and  the  emphatic  introduction  of  the  pronoun,  implying  a  new 
object  of  adrcss,  and  not  a  mere  enallage,  because  he  immediately  resumes 
the  address  to  the  people  in  the  singular. — /  have  made  thee  to  hear  new 
things.  He  appeals  not  only  to  the  past  but  to  the  future,  and  thus  does 
what  he  vainly  challenged  them  to  do.  There  is  no  need  of  inquiring  what 
particular  predictions  are  referred  to.  All  that  seems  to  be  intended  is  the 
general  distinction  between  past  and  future,  between  earher  and  later  pro- 
phecies.— From  now,  henceforth,  after  the  present  time.  It  is  a  curious 
fact  that  Hitzig,  who  regards  the  old  interpretation  of  Dp^O  (^less  than 
nothing)  in  chap.  xl.  17,  as  absurd,  makes  nriyp  iu  the  case  before  us  a 
comparative  expression,  and  translates  the  whole  phrase  newer  than  now, 
which  he  says  is  a  circumlocution  for  the  future. — And  (things)  kept  (in 
reserve),  and  thou  hast  not  known  them,  or,  in  our  idiom,  which  t]iou'[hast 
not  known.  Beck,  by  some  unintelligible  process,  reaches  the  conclusion 
that  this  verse  contains  a  peifectly  indisputable  case  of  vaticinium  post 
event  um. 

7.  Now  they  are  created  (/.  e.  brought  into  existence  for  the  first  time), 
and  not  of  old,  or  never  before.  The  literal  meaning  of  the  next  words  is, 
and  before  the  day  and  thou  ha^t  not  heard  them.  J.  D.  Michatlis  and  some 
others  seem  to  understand  this  as  meaning,  one  day  ago  thou  h<(dst  not  heard 
them  .•  but  this  is  a  German  or  a  Latin  idiom,  wholly  foreign  from  the 
Hebrew  usage.  Others,  with  more  probabihty,  explain  it  to  mean,  before 
thi^  dag  (or  before  to-dag)  thou  hast  never  heard  them,  DV  being  put  h\ 
poetical  licence  for  D1*n  with  the  article.  Gesenius  understands  by  day  the 
time  of  the  fulfilment ;  which  is  not  so  obvious  nor  so  appropriate,  because 
the  prophecy  must  be  made  known  before  it  can  be  verified  by  the  event. 


214  ISAIAH  XL  VI T I.  [Ver.  8. 

In  nil  those  constructions,  the  1  before  i<^  is  supposed  to  bo  the  idiomutic 
sign  ot"  the  apodosis,  very  frccpient  alter  specirications  of  time.  (See  Clen. 
xxii.  4.)  The  same  reason  is  assigned  as  before  :  Ia'sI  thnn  sfiouUlest  my, 
J-ir/i/thI,  I  hiifiv  tlion.  In  the  last  word  the  ffminine  suflix  takes  the  place 
of  the  masculine  in  the  verse  preceding,  equivalent  in  import  to  the  Greek 
or  Latin  neuter. 

8.  AVn/,  ihoii  didst  not  hear ;  nay,  thou  didst  not  know.  The  idiomatic 
form  of  this  sentence  i.s  not  easily  expressed  in  a  translntion,  which,  if  tQo 
exact,  will  fail  to  show  the  true  connection.  Having  given  the  perversc- 
ness  of  the  people  as  a  reason  why  they  knew  so  much  by  previous  revela- 
tion, he  now  assigns  it  as  a  reason  why  they  knew  so  little.  These,  although 
at  first  sii^'ht  inconsistent  statements,  are  but  varied  a.specta  of  the  same 
thing.  God  had  told  them  so  much  beforehand,  lest  they  should  ascribe 
the  event  to  other  causes.  He  had  told  them  no  more,  because  he  knew 
that  they  would  wickedly  abuse  his  favour.  In  a  certain  sense,  and  to  a 
certain  extent,  it  was  true  that  they  had  heard  and  known  these  things 
beforehand.  In  another  sens-e,  and  beyond  that  extent,  it  was  equally  true 
that  they  had  neither  heard  r.or  known  them.  This  seems  to  be  the  true 
force  of  the  D|.  It  was  tiue  that  they  had  heard,  but  it  was  (tlsi>  true  that 
they  had  not  heard.  The  strict  sense  of  the  clause  is,  ltkeiri.se  thou  hadst 
not  heard,  likcuiae  thou  hadst  not  known  ;  but  as  this  foim  of  expression  is 
quite  foreign  from  our  idiom,  nay,  may  be  substituted,  not  as  a  synoujTne, 
but  an  c<iuivalent.  The  yea  of  the  common  version  fails  to  indicate  the 
true  connection,  by  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  climax  rather  than  that  of  an 
antithesis,  of  something  more  rather  than  of  something  ditTcreiit. — LikavUe 
of  old  (or  befori'hand)  thine  ear  uaa  not  ojien,  literally,  did  nut  open,  the 
Hebrew  usage  coinciding  with  the  English  in  giving  to  this  verb  both  a 
transitive  and  intransitive  sense.  (For  another  clear  example  of  the  latter, 
see  below,  chap.  Ix.  11.)  Vitringa  understands  the  whole  of  this  tirst 
clause  as  meaning  that  they  wmld  not  hear  or  know,  but  stopped  their  ears 
and  minds  against  the  revelation  which  was  oll'cred  to  them.  For  this  sup- 
position he  assigns  a  reason  tl  at  is  really  conclusive  on  the  other  side,  viz. 
that  the  last  clause  describes  them  as  treacherous  and  disloyal,  which  he 
says  would  be  urjust  if  they  had  no  revelation  to  abuse.  But  this  argument 
proceeds  upon  a  false  view  as  to  the  connection  of  the  clauses.  It  supposes 
the  first  to  give  a  rea.son  for  the  last,  whereas  the  last  gives  a  reason  for  the 
first.  The  sense  is  not,  thr.t  because  they  would  not  hear  or  know  what 
was  revealed,  God  denounced  them  as  tniitt)r8  and  apostates  ;  but  that 
hecauKe  they  were  traitors  and  apostates,  ho  would  not  allow  them  to  h(  ar 
or  know  tlie  things  in  question.  This  construction  is  rt  quired  by  the  '3 
{l>ecause)  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause  ;  by  the  words  1  hneu-,  which, 
on  the  other  supposition,  are  unmeaning  ;  and  by  the  form  "tli^n,  which 
cannot,  without  arbitrary  violence,  have  any  other  sense  heri-  but  the  strict 
one  of  the  future,  or  of  some  tense  involving  the  idea  of  futurity. — /  know 
thou  irilt,  (or  /  knew  thuu  vonidest)  act  very  trearhertmshj.  Lowth  sup- 
poses the  emphatic  repetition  of  the  verb  to  express  certainty  rather  than 
intensity,  and  both  may  be  included,  i.  e.  both  w«)uld  perhaps  be  unavoid- 
ably suggested  by  this  form  of  exjiression  to  a  He!  row  reader.  Heck's  trium- 
phant charge  against  the  writer  of  the  *'  naivost  Helt'-contradicti«)n,"  proceeds 
upon  tlio  false  assuni|)tion  that  the  conquest  of  i^abylon  by  Cyrus  is  the 
chief,  or  nUher  the  sole  subject  of  tho  prophecy,  an  error  which  has  been 
already  more  than  once  exposed. — .\nd  apostate  (rel»el,  or  deserter)  jrom 
the  womb  teas  called  to  tlice,  t.  «.  this  name  was  used  in  calling  thoo,  or  thou 


Yer.  9,  10.]  ISAIAH  XLVIII.  215 

wast  called.  Besides  the  idiom  in  the  syntax,  there  is  hero  another  ia- 
stanco  of  the  use  of  the  verb  call  or  navie  to  express  the  real  character. 
The}'  were  so  called  /.  e.  thoy  might  have  been  so,  they  deserved  to  be  so. 
(See  above,  chap.  i.  26,  vol.  i,  p.  92.) — Here,  as  in  chap.  xlii.  2,  24,  most 
interpreters  explain  the  womb  as  meaning  Egypt ;  and  Jerome  can-ies  this 
idea  so  far  as  to  paraphrase  the  words  thus,  quando  dc  A^gypto  Uhemtus, 
quasi  meo  ventre  conceptus  es.  In  all  the  cases,  it  seems  far  more  natural 
to  understand  this  trait  of  the  description  as  belonging  rather  to  the  sign 
th;in  the  thing  signified,  as  representing  no  specific  circumstance  of  time  or 
place  in  the  history  of  Israel,  but  simply  the  infancy  or  birth  of  the  ideal 
person  substituted  for  him. 

9.  For  my  names  sake.  Aben  Ezra  understands  this  to  mean,  for  the 
sake  of  my  name  by  which  ye  are  called  ;  but  most  interpreters  explain  it 
as  an  equivalent  but  stronger  expression  ihan/or  my  oivn  sah-e,  for  the  sake 
of  the  revelation  which  I  have  already  made  of  my  own  attributes.  This 
explanation  agrees  well  with  the  language  of  ver.  11  below. — I  will  defer 
my  anger.  Literally,  prolong  it  ;  but  this  would  be  equivocal  in  English. 
To  avoid  the  equivoque,  Vitringa  adopts  the  absurd  translation,  1  will 
lengthen  (or  prolong)  my  nose,  which  he  explains  my  saying  that  a  long  face 
is  a  sign  of  clemency  or  mildness,  and  a  short  or  contracted  face  of  auger ; 
an  opinion  which  appears  to  have  as  little  foundation  in  physiognomy  as  in 
etymolog}'.  It  seems  most  probable  that  1^  anger,  and  D!Si<  the  nostrils  are 
at  most  coUatei'al  derivatives  from  ^3N  to  breathe.  The  common  version, 
/  vill  defer  nig  anger,  is  approved  by  the  latest  writers,  and  confirmed  not 
only  by  our  familiar  use  of  long  and  slmr,  in  certain  applications,  as  con- 
vertible terms,  but  also  by  the  unequivocal  analogy  of  the  Greek  /j,axs6iv/xog 
and  the  Latin  longanimis — And  {for)  my  praise  I  will  restrain  (it)  towards 
thee.  Praise  is  here  the  parallel  to  name,  and  may  be  governed  by  ]V07, 
repeated  from  the  other  clause.  The  more  obvious  construction,  which 
would  make  it  dependent  on  the  following  verb,  is  forbidden  by  the  accents, 
and  yields  no  coherent  sense.  Gesenius  makes  Dt3nN  reflexive,  or  at  least 
supplies  the  reflexive  pronoun  after  it  [I  refrain  myself ) ;  but  it  is  simpler 
to  assume  the  same  object  (my  wrath)  in  both  clauses. — The  last  words  of 
the  verse  express  the  cfi'ect  to  be  produced,  so  as  not  to  cut  thee  off,  or  de- 
stroy thee. 

10.  Behold  I  have  melted  thee.  This  is  the  original  meaning  of  the 
word  ;  but  it  is  commonly  applied  to  the  smelting  of  metals,  and  may  there- 
fore be  translated  proved  or  tried  thee.  —  And  not  with  silver.  Some  read 
^P?3  (r/.v  silver),  and  others  take  the  3  itself  as  a  particle  of  comparison,  or 
bring  out  substantially  the  same  sense  by  rendering  it  with  {i.e.  in  company 
with)  silver,  or  by  means  of  the  same  process.  This  is  explained  by  Hitzig 
strictly  as  denoting  that  he  had  not  literally  melted  them  like  silver,  but  only 
metaphorically  in  the  furnace  of  atfliction,  an  assurance  no  more  needed 
here  than  in  any  other  case  of  figurative  language.  Apart  from  these  inter- 
pretations, which  assume  the  sense  lihe  silver,  the  opinions  of  interpreters 
have  been  divided  chiefly  between  two.  The  first  of  these  explains  the 
Prophet's  words  to  mean,  not  for  silver  {or  money),  but  gratuitously.  This 
is  certainly  the  meaning  of  ^P??  i"  ^  number  of  places ;  but  it  seems  to  be 
entirely  inappropriate  when  speaking  of  aftliction,  which  is  rather  aggi*avated 
than  relieved  by  the  idea  of  its  being  gratuitous,  /.  e.  for  nothing.  The 
other  explanation,  and  the  one  now  commonly  adopted,  takes  the  sense  to 
be,  not  with  silver  {i.  e.  pure  metal)  as  the  result  of  the  process.  This 
agrees  well  with  the  context,  which  makes  the  want  of  merit  on  the  part  of 


21G  ISAIAH  XL\  111.  iVjiB.  ll-l;3. 

Israel  continually  prominent.  It  also  corresponds  exactly  to  the  other 
clause,  /  have  chosen  thee  (not  in  wcultli,  or  power,  or  honour,  but)  in  the 
/uniace  (if  (ijfliction.  The  explanation  of 'J?*?'^?  as  Kynonynaous  with 'Pl?n^ 
is  entirely  gratuitous.  There  is  no  word  the  pense  of  which  is  more  deter- 
minately  fixed  by  usage.  The  reason  given  by  Gesenius  for  making  pioie 
or  Irif  the  primar}'  meaning  of  this  verb,  without  a  single  instance  to  establish 
it,  is  the  extraordinary  one  that  trial  must  precede  choice,  which  assumes 
the  very  question  in  dispute,  viz.,  that  "^HZl  means  to  try  at  all,  a  fact  which 
cannot  be  sustained  by  Arameau  analogies,  in  the  tcelh  of  an  invariable 
Hebrew  usage.  But  even  if  the  method  of  arriving  at  this  sense  were  less 
objectionable  than  it  is,  the  sense  itself  would  still  be  less  appropriate  and 
expressive  than  the  common  one.  I  have  proved  thee  in  the  funmco  of 
afUiclion,  means  I  have  atllicted  thee  ;  but  this  is  saying  even  less  than  the 
first  clause,  whatever  sense  may  there  be  put  upon  ^P3?.  It  is  not  very 
likely  that  the  Prophet  simply  meant  to  say,  I  have  ajHicted  thee  in  niin,  I 
hare  afllivted  thee.  It  is  certainly  more  proliable.  and  more  in  keei)ing  with 
the  context  and  his  whole  design,  to  understand  him  as  saying,  I  have  found 
no  merit  in  thee,  and  have  chosen  thee  in  the  extreme  of  degradation  and 
affliction.  If  the  furnace  of  affliction  was  designed  to  have  a  distinct  his- 
torical meaning,  it  probably  refers  not  to  I^abylon,  but  Kgvpt,  whiph  is 
repeatedly  called  an  iron  furnace.  This  would  agree  exactly  with  the  re- 
presentations elsewhere  made  respecting  the  election  of  Israel  in  Kgypt. 

11.  tor  nuj  oirn  salce,  for  vnj  own  sake,  I  uill  do — what  is  to  be  done. 
This  is  commonly  restricted  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile  ;  but 
this  specific  application  of  the  promise  is  not  made  till  afterwards.  The 
terms  are  comprehensive,  and  contain  a  statement  of  the  general  doctrine, 
as  the  sum  of  the  whole  argument,  that  what  Jehovah  docs  for  his  own 
people,  is  in  tnith  done  not  for  any  merit  upon  their  part,  but  to  protect 
his  own  divine  honour. — For  how  trill  it  be  jirofaned/  This  may  either 
mean.  How  greatly  would  it  be  profaned  !  or,  How  can  I  suffer  it  to  be 
profaned  ?  Gesenius  anticipates  honour  from  the  other  clause ;  but  most 
interpreters  make  name  the  subject  of  the  verb,  a  combination  which  occurs 
in  several  other  places.  (See  Lev.  xviii.  21,  xix.  2*2,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  20.— 
Ami  mil  ijlonj  (or  honour)  to  another  will  I  not  tjire,  as  he  must  do  if  his 
enemies  eventually  triumph  over  his  o^^•n  people.  The  same  words,  with 
the  same  sense,  occur  above  in  chap.  xlii.  8. 

12.  Hearken  unto  me,  O  Jacob,  and  Israel  inij  called;  Iain  He,  I  am 
the  First,  also  I  the  Last.  A  renewed  assurance  of  his  ability  and  willing- 
ness to  execute  his  promises,  the  latter  being  implied  in  the  phrase  m;/  called, 
i.e.  specially  elected  by  me  to  extraordinary  privileges.  The  threefold 
repetition  of  the  pronoun  /  is  supposed  by  some  of  the  older  writers  to 
contain  an  allusion  to  the  Trinity,  of  which  interpretation  Vitringa  wisely 
says,  ijuaiii  meditaiionem  hoc  loco  non  unjeo  netjue  re/ello.  I  am  He  is  under- 
stood by  the  lal<r  writers  to  mean,  I  am  the  Being  in  question,  or  it  is,  I 
that  am  the  First  and  the  Last.  The  older  writers  give  the  W't  a  more 
emphatic  sense,  as  meaning,  Ho  that  really  exists. —  Lowth  supplies  my 
servant  after  .Jaeoh,  on  the  authority  of  one  nninuscript  and  two  old  edi- 
tions. On  like  authority  he  changes  ^^  iuto  the  simple  conjunctive  V 
which  he  says  is  more  proper. — Compare  with  this  verse  chap.  xli.  1,  xliii. 
10,  xliv.  0. 

18.  Al.so  wii/  hantl  founded  the  earth,  atid  my  riijht  ha\id  s/>anned  the 
heavens.  The  force  of  the  ^IN  seems  to  be  this.  Not  only  am  1  an  Kt<>mal 
Being,  but  tbo  Creator  of  the  heaveus.     Hand  and  riijht  hand  is  mcruly  a 


Yer.  11,  15.]  ISAIAH  XLVIII.  217 

poetical  or  rhetorical  variation. — The  Septuagint  renders  nri^O  hTiii-jjUi, 
by  assimilation  to  the  parallel  term  fuunded.  The  Vulgate  has  mensa  est, 
which  is  approved  b}'  Kimchi.  The  Chaldee  suspended,  which  may  be 
taken  either  strictly,  or  in  the  sense  of  balanced,  wtv/lu'd.  Aben  Ezra, 
followed  by  most  modern  writers,  makes  it  mean  expanded;  which  explana- 
tion is  confirmed  by  the  Syriac  analogy,  and  by  the  parallel  passage  chap, 
li.  18,  where  the  founding  of  the  earth  is  connected  with  the  spreading  of 
the  skies,  and  the  latter  expressed  by  the  unambiguous  word  H^U.  Luzzatto 
points  out  a  like  combination  of  the  derivative  nouns  in  1  Kings  vii.  9. — 
Vitringa  construes  ^J>^  ^!?P  like  an  ablative  absolute  in  Latin  [me  vocatite), 
and  the  same  sense  is  given,  with  a  difierence  of  form,  in  the  English  Ver- 
sion [uJien  I  call).  But  in  Hebrew  usage,  the  pronoun  and  participle  thus 
combined  are  employed  to  express  present  and  continuous  action,  /  {am) 
callinff,  i.e.  I  habitually  call.  The  words  are  not  therefore  natm'ally 
applicable  to  the  original  creation  (/  called),  as  Cocceius,  Gesenius,  and 
others  explain  them,  but  must  either  be  referred,  with  Kimchi,  to  the 
constant  exertion  of  creative  power  in  the  conservation  of  tlie  universe,  or, 
with  Vitringa  and  most  later  writers,  to  the  authority  of  the  Creator  over 
his  creatures  as  his  instruments  and  servants.  /  call  to  them  (summon 
them),  and  they  iiill  stand  up  toijether  [i.e.  all,  without  exception).  This 
agrees  well  with  the  usage  of  the  phrase  to  stand  before,  as  expressing  the 
attendance  of  the  servant  on  his  master.  (See,  for  example,  1  Kings  xvii. 
1.)  The  same  two  ideas  of  creation  and  service  are  connected  in  Ps.  cxix. 
90,  91.  The  exclusive  reference  of  the  whole  verse  to  creation,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  iiom.  iv.  17,  and  Col.  i,  17. — 
For  the  ditierent  expressions  here  used  see  above,  chap.  xl.  22,  xlii.  5, 
xliv.  24,  xlv.  12. 

14.  Assemble  yourselves,  all  of  you,  and  hear  !  The  object  of  address  is 
Isl'ael,  according  to  the  common  supposition,  but  more  probably  the  heathen. 
Who  amony  them,  i.e.  the  false  gods  or  their  prophets,  h(tth  declared  (pre- 
dicted) these  thinys,  the  whole  series  of  events  which  had  been  cited  to  de- 
monstrate the  divine  foreknowledge.  Jelwrah  loves  him,  i.e.  Israel,  and 
to  shew  his  love,  he  ivill  do  his  pleasure  (execute  his  puq)ose)  in  llabyUm, 
and  his  (Jehovah's)  arm  (shall  be  upon)  the  Chaldees.  This  explanation, 
which  is  given  by  J.  H.  Michaelis,  seems  to  answer  all  the  conditions  of 
the  text  and  context.  Most  interpreters,  however,  make  the  clause  refer 
to  Cyrus,  and  translate  it  thus,  "He  whom  Jehovah  loves  shall  do  his 
pleasure  in  Babylon,  and  his  ann  (i.e.  exercise  his  power,  or  execute  his 
vengeance)  on  the  Chaldees."  Another  construction  of  the  last  words 
makes  them  mean  that  "he  (Cyrus)  shall  be  his  arm  (/.<■.  the  arm  of 
Jehovah)  against  the  Chaldees."  liut  for  this  use  oi  arm  there  is  no  satis- 
factory analog}'.  Kocher  supposes  it  to  mean  that  "  the  Chaldees  (shall 
be)  his  arm,"  in  allusion  to  the  aid  which  Cyrus  received  from  Gobryas 
and  Gadates,  as  related  in  the  fourth  book  of  the  Cyropaedia.  Vitringa  is 
inclined  to  assume  an  aposiopesis,  and  to  read,  "  his  arm  (shall  conquer  or 
destroy)  the  Chaldees."  Aben  Ezra  refers  both  the  sutlixes  to  Cynis,  who 
is  thou  said  to  do  his  own  pleasure  upon  Babylon. — Others  refer  both  to 
God  (his  pleasure  and  his  arm) ;  but  most  interpreters  take  a  middle  course, 
referring  one  to  each. 

15.  I,  I,  have  spoken  (i.e.  predicted);  I  have  also  called  him  (effectually 
by  my  providence)  ;  I  have  hrouyld  him  (into  existence,  or  into  public  ^-iew) ; 
and  he  prospered  his  way.  The  reference  of  the  last  verb  to  Jehovah  as  its 
subject  involves  a  harsh  enallage  persona?,  which  Vitringa  and  others  avoid 


218  ISAIAH  XLVIIT.  [Vku.  10. 

by  makiug  the  verb  neuter  or  intransitive,  his  way  prospers.  But  "IT)*^.  is 
feminine,  not  only  iu  general  usage,  but  in  cumbiuatiou  witb  this  very  verb 
(Judges  xviii.  5).  The  safe  rule  is,  moreover,  to  give  Hiphil  an  active 
sense  wherever  it  is  possible.  The  true  solution  is  to  make  Cyrus  or  Israel 
the  subject,  and  to  understand  the  phrase  as  meaning,  he  imikes  his  own 
way  prosperous,  i.  e.  prospers  in  it.  (Compai-e  Ps.  i.  8,  and  Heugstcnberg'a 
Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  vol.  i.  p.  17.) 

IG.  Draw  near  unto  me  !  As  Jehovah  is  confessedly  the  speaker  in  the 
foregoing  and  the  following  context,  and  as  similar  language  is  expressly 
ascribed  to  him  in  chap,  xlv,  19,  Calvin  and  Geseuius  regard  it  as  most 
natural  to  make  these  his  words  likewise,  assuming  a  transition  in  the  last 
clause  from  Jehovah  to  the  Prophet,  who  there  describes  himself  as  sent 
by  Jehovah.  Instead  of  this  distinction  between  the  clauses,  Jjirchi  jiud 
Rosenmiiller  suppose  the  person  of  the  Prophet  and  of  God  to  be  confused 
in  both.  Ilit/ig  and  Kuobel  follow  some  of  the  other  Jewish  writers  in 
making  the  whole  verse  the  words  of  Isaiah.  Vitringa  and  Henderson  agree 
with  Athanasius,  Augustin,  and  other  Fathers,  who  reconcile  the  clauses  by 
making  Christ  the  speaker.  Those  who  believe  that  he  is  elsewhere  intro- 
duced in  this  same  book,  can  have  no  difficulty  in  admitting  a  hypothesis, 
which  reconciles  the  divine  and  human  attributes  referred  to  iu  the  sentence, 
as,  belonging  to  one  person. —  Hear  this;  not  from  the  Leyinning  in  secret 
have  I  sjjoken.  See  above,  on  chap.  xlv.  10. — From  the  lime  u/  its  being. 
CEcolampadius  refers  this  to  the  eternal  counsel  of  Jehovah  ;  but  Vitringa 
well  observes  that  usage  has  appropriated  H^'H  to  express  the  execution,  not 
the  formation  of  the  divine  purpose.  Brentius  supposes  an  allusion  to  the 
exodus  from  Egypt  and  a  comparison  between  it  and  the  deliverance  from 
Babylon  ;  but  this  is  wholly  fanciful  and  arbitrary.  The  rabbins,  with  as 
little  reason,  make  it  mean,  since  the  beginning  of  my  ministry,  since  I 
assumed  the  prophetic  office.  But  most  interpreters  refer  the  suthx  (it)  to 
the  raising  up  of  Cyrus  and  the  whole  scries  of  events  connected  with  it, 
which  formed  the  subject  of  the  prophecies  in  question.  (See  above,  chap, 
xlvi.  11.) — Since  these  events  began  to  take  place,  /  uas  there.  Lowth 
proposes  to  read  D^  and  to  translate  the  phrase,  I  had  decreed  it.  But  the 
obvious  analogy  of  Prov.  viii.  27  isof  itself  sutlicient  to  establish  the  Masoretic 
reading.  Those  who  regard  these  as  the  words  of  Isaiah,  understand  them 
to  mean  that  he  had  predicted  them,  or  as  Knobel  expresses  it,  that  ho  was 
present  as  a  public  speaker.  Those  who  refer  the  words  to  the  Son  of  God 
specifically,  make  the  verse  substantially  identical  in  meaning  with  the  one 
in  Proverbs  just  referred  to,  which  the  church  in  every  age  has  been  very 
much  of  one  mind  in  applying  to  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead  as  the 
hypostatical  wisdom  of  the  Father.  Those  who  take  the  words  more 
generally  as  the  language  of  Jehovah,  understand  him  to  declare  that  these 
events  had  not  occurred  without  his  knowledge  or  his  agency  ;  that  he  wjia 
present,  cognizant,  and  active,  in  the  whole  aflair.  Thus  far  this  last 
hypothesis  must  be  allowed  to  be  the  simplest  and  most  natural.  The 
difficulties  which  attend  it  arise  wholly  from  what  follows. — And  now. 
This  seems  to  bo  in  evident  antithesis  to  t'Nip  or  to  J^nvn  nyp,  the  latter 
being  the  most  obvious  because  it  is  the  nearest  antecedent. — The  Lord 
JeJtovah  hath  sent  me.  Those  who  regard  Isaiah  as  the  speaker  in  the  whole 
verse,  understand  this  clause  to  mean,  that  as  he  had  spoken  before  by  diviuo 
authority  and  inspiration,  he  did  so  still.  Those  who  refer  the  first  clause 
simply  to  Jehovah,  without  reference  to  personal  distinctions,  arc  under  the 
necessity  of  here  assuming  a  transition  to  the   language  of  the  Prophet 


Ver.  17.]  ISA  I A  R  XL  VJII.  21t) 

himself.  The  third  hypothesis,  which  makes  the  Son  of  God  the  speaker, 
understands  Loth  clauses  in  their  strict  sense  as  denoting  his  eternity  on  ono 
hand,  and  his  mission  on  the  other.  The  sending  of  the  Son  by  the  Father 
is  a  standing  for.n  of  speech  in  Scripture.  (Exod.  xxiii.  iJO,  Isa.  Ixi.  1, 
Mai.  iii.  1,  John  iii.  34,  xvii.  3,  Hcb,  iii.  1.) — And  his  Spirit.  It  has  long 
been  a  subject  of  dispute  whether  these  words  belong  to  the  subject  or  the 
object  of  the  verb  hath  sent.  The  English  Version  removes  all  ambiguity 
by  changing  the  collocation  of  the  words  {the  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit  hath 
sent  me).  The  same  sense  is  given  in  the  Vulgate  {et  sjriiHus  ejus);  while 
the  coincidence  of  the  nominative  and  accusative  {ro  rrviZ/Ma)  makes  the 
Sepluagint  no  less  ambiguous  than  the  original.  With  the  Latin  and 
English  agree  Calvin,  Fiosenmiiller,  Umbreit,  and  Hcndewerk.  Vitringa, 
Henderson,  and  Knobel,  adopt  Origen's  interpretation  [aiJ^fonoa  u-iisrsiXiv  6 
rrarrio,  rhv  ffwrj^sa  xa^  ro  ayiov  TvsD.aa).  Gcsenius  and  the  other  modern 
Germans  change  the  form  of  expression  by  inserting  the  preposition  tuith, 
which,  however,  is  intended  to  represent  the  Spirit  not  as  the  sender  but  as 
one  of  the  things  sent. — The  exegetical  question  is  not  one  of  much  im- 
portance ;  because  both  the  senses  yielded  are  consistent  with  the  usage  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  ambiguity  may  be  intended  to  let  both  suggest 
themselves.  As  a  grammatical  question,  it  is  hard  to  be  decided  from 
analog}' ;  because,  on  either  supposition,  inni.  cannot  be  considered  as  holding 
its  regular  position  in  the  sentence,  but  must  be  regarded  as  an  afterthought. 
The  main  proposition  is,  the  Lord  God  hath  sent  me.  The  supplementary 
expression  und  his  Spirit  may  be  introduced,  without  absurdity  or  any 
violation  of  the  rules  of  syntax,  cither  before  the  verb  or  after  it.  Mere 
usage  therefore  leaves  the  question  undecided. — As  little  can  it  be  deter- 
mined by  the  context  or  the  parallelisms.  The  argument,  which  some  urge, 
that  the  Spirit  is  never  said  to  send  the  Son,  takes  for  granted  that  the  latter 
is  the  speaker,  an  assumption  which  precludes  any  inference  from  the  lan- 
guage of  this  clause  in  proof  of  that  position.  Those,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  consider  these  the  words  of  Isaiah,  argue  in  favour  of  the  other  con- 
struction, that  the  Spirit  is  said  to  send  the  prophets. — On  the  whole  this  may 
be  fairly  represented  as  one  of  the  most  doubtful  questions  of  construction  ia 
the  book,  and  the  safest  course  is  either  to  admit  that  both  ideas  were  meant 
to  be  suggested,  although  probably  in  ditl'ercnt  degrees,  or  else  to  fall  back 
upon  the  general  rule,  though  liable  to  numberless  exceptions,  that  the 
preference  is  due  to  the  nearest  antecedent  or  to  that  construction  which 
adheres  most  closely  to  the  actual  collocation  of  the  words.  The  applica- 
tion of  this  principle  in  this  case  would  decide  the  doubt  in  favour  of  the 
prevailing  modern  doctrine,  that  Jehovah  had  sent  the  person  speaking  and 
endued  him  with  his  Spirit,  as  a  necessary  preparation  for  the  work  to  which 
he  was  appointed.  Beck's  ridiculous  assertion,  that  the  \sTiter  is  here  guilty 
of  the  folly  of  appealing  to  his  present  prediction  of  events  already  past  as  a 
proof  of  his  divine  legation,  only  shews  the  folsehood  of  the  current  notion 
that  the  object  of  address  is  the  Jewish  people  at  the  period  of  the  exile, 
and  its  subject  the  victories  of  C}tus. 

17.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  thy  lu'decmer,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  (see  the 
same  prefatory  foi-mulas  above,  chap.  xli.  14,  xliii.  14),  I  am  Jeharah  thy 
God  (or  I  Jehovah  am  thy  God),  teachiiiy  thee  to  pro/it  (or  /,  Jehovah,  thy 
God,  am  teachiny  thee  to  pro/it).  Henderson's  version,  1  teach,  does  not 
convey  the  precise  force  of  the  original,  which  is  expressive  of  continued 
and  habitual  instruction,  and  the  same  remark  applies  to  the  participle  in 
the  other  clause.     To  projit,  i.  e,  to  be  profitable  to  thyself,  to  provide  for 


220  ISAIAH  XLVlir.  I Vkr.  18. 

thy  own  safety  and  prosperity,  or  as  Coeccius  phrases  it,  tihi  caiisnlere. 
There  seems  to  be  a  reference,  as  Viti-inpi  suj^'gests,  to  the  unproGtahleuess 
so  often  charf^ed  upon  false  gods  and  their  worship.  (See  chap.  xiiv.  10, 
xlv.  19,  Jer.  ii.  11.) — Lrndiuij  thee  (Hterally,  making  the  to  tread)  in  the 
way  thou  shall  yo.  The  eih'psis  of  the  relative  is  just  the  same  as  in  fami- 
liar English.  The  future  includes  the  ideas  of  obligation  and  necessity, 
without  expressing  them  directly  ;  the  precise  sense  of  the  words  is,  the 
u-ay  thou  tail  I  yo  if  thou  desirest  to  profit.  Augusti  and  Ewald  make  it 
present  {<jocst) ;  but  this  is  at  the  same  time  less  exact  and  less  expressive. 
— J.  H.  Michaelis  understands  these  as  the  words  of  Christ,  the  teaching 
mentioned  as  the  teaching  of  the  gospel,  the  way,  the  way  of  salvation,  Sec. 
To  all  this  the  words  are  legitimately  applicable,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  they  were  specitically  meant  to  convey  this  idea  to  the  reader. 

18.  J.  D.  Michaelis  suggests  the  possibility  of  reading  ^y>,  a  form  in 
which  the  negative  i<^  occurs,  according  to  the  Masora,  thirty-live  times  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  tirst  clause  would  then  contain  a  direct  negation, 
thou  hast  not  attended.  In  his  version,  however,  he  adheres  to  the  Maso- 
retic  pointing,  and  translates  the  word  as  a  conditional  pnrticle  {wcnn  du 
doch),  which  is  also  recognised  by  Winer  as  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word,  although  Gesenius  and  Ewald  reverse  the  order  of  deduction,  making 
if  a  secondarj'  sense  of  the  optative  particle  <)  that !  The  former  supposi- 
tion may  be  illustrated  by  our  own  colloijuial  exjjression,  //"  it  ue>e  only  so 
and  80,  implying  a  desire  that  it  were  so.  The  verb  which  follows  is  com- 
monly taken  in  the  wide  sense  of  attending,  that  o{  lidening  being  looked 
upon  as  a  specific  application  of  it.  Yitringa  here  translates  it,  animum 
advertisses ;  J.  H.  Michaelis,  with  more  reL'ard  to  usage,  nezres  et  animum. 
It  may  be  questioned,  however,  whether  there  is  any  clear  case  of  its  being 
used  without  explicit  reference  to  hearing.  If  not,  this  must  be  regarded 
as  the  proper  meaning,  and  the  wider  ?ensc  considered  as  implied  but  not 
expressed.  Rosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  Heudewerk,  and  Knobel,  understand  this 
verb  as  refeiring  to  the  future  ;  0  that  thou  xoouUlst  hearken  to  my  com- 
viandineiits  !  ]'ut  the  only  instance  which  they  cite  of  this  use  of  the 
pra-terite  (Isa.  Ixiii.  10),  even  if  it  did  not  admit  (as  it  evidently  does)  of  the 
other  explanation,  could  not  be  set  otf  against  the  settled  usage  of  the 
language,  which  refers  1/  with  the  pra-terite  to  past  time.  (See  Ewald's 
Grammar,  j  OOo,  and  Xordheimer,  §  1078.)  Accordingly  .Maurer,  De 
Wette,  Ewald,  Umlireit,  and  Gesenius  (though  less  explicitly),  agree  with 
the  older  \mtcrs  in  exi»lainii)g  it  to  mean,  O  that  thou  had.st  hearkened  to 
my  commaiidinentjt  !  The  objection,  that  this  does  not  suit  the  context,  is 
entirely  unfounded.  Nothing  could  well  be  more  appropriate  at  the  dose  of 
this  division  of  the  j)rophccies,  than  such  an  afl'ecting  statement  of  the  truth, 
80  frequently  propounded  in  didactic  form  already,  that  Israel,  although 
the  chosen  people  of  Jehovah,  and  as  such  secure  from  total  ruin,  was  and 
was  to  be  a  sufl'enr,  not  from  any  want  of  faithfulness  or  care  on  God's 
part,  but  as  the  necessary  fruit  of  his  own  imperfections  and  corruptions. 
— The  Vav  conversive  introduces  the  apodosis,  and  is  ecpiivalent  to  then, 
as  used  in  English  for  a  similar  purpose.  Those  who  refer  the  first  clause 
to  the  present  or  the  future,  give  the  second  the  fonn  of  the  imperfect  sub- 
junctive, then  would  thy  peace  Ir  lilce  a  river;  the  others  more  correctly 
that  of  the  pluperfect,  then  had  thy  peace  been  (or  then  uould  thy  peace  have 
been)  as  a  river.  The  strict  senso  of  the  llebrew,  is  the  river,  which 
Yitringa  and  others  understand  to  mean  the  Euphrates  in  paHunl:ir.  witli 


Ver.  19.J  ISAIAH  XLVUL  221 

whose  innnclations,  a,s  well  as  with  its  ordinary  flow,  the  Prophet's  original 
readers  were  familiar.  It  seems  to  be  more  natural,  however,  to  regard 
the  article  as  pointing  out  a  definite  class  of  objects  rather  than  an  indivi- 
dual, and  none  the  less  because  the  parallel  expression  is  the  sea,  which 
some,  with  wanton  violence,  apply  to  the  Euphrates  also. — I'eace  is  hero 
used  in  its  wide  sense  of  prosperity :  or  rather  peace,  in  the  restricted 
sense,  is  used  to  represent  all  kindred  and  attendant  blessings.  The 
parallel  term  riifhh'oii.stwss  adds  moral  good  to  natural,  and  supplies  the 
indispensable  condition  without  which  the  other  cannot  be  enjoyed.  After 
the  various  aflectations  of  the  modern  German  writers  in  distorting  this 
and  similar  expressions,  it  is  refreshing  to  find  Ewald,  and  even  Hende- 
werk,  returning  to  the  old  and  simple  version,  Peace  and  Iliiihteonsness. 
The  ideas  suggested  by  the  figure  of  a  river,  are  abundance,  perpetuity, 
and  freshness,  to  which  the  waves  of  the  sea  add  thos3  of  vastness,  depth, 
and  continual  succession. 

19.  Then  should  have  been  like  the  srnid  thy  seed,  a  common  Scriptural 
expression  for  great  multitude,  with  special  reference,  in  this  case,  to  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham  and  Jacob  (Gen.  xxii.  17,  xxxii.  12),  the  partial 
accomplishment  of  which  (2  Sam.  xvii.  11)  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
thought  here  expressed,  that,  in  the  case  supposed,  it  would  have  been  far 
more  ample  and  conspicuous.  Here,  as  in  chap.  xliv.  3,  Knobel  under- 
stands by  seed  or  offspring,  the  individual  members  of  the  nation  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  aggregate  body.  But  the  image  is  rather  that  of  a 
parent  (here  the  patriarch  Jacob)  and  his  personal  descendants. —  And  the 
issues  (or  offsprhui)  of  thtj  bowels  (an  equivalent  expression  to  thy  seed). — 
Of  the  next  word,  WP,  there  are  two  interpretations.  The  Targum,  the 
Vulgate,  and  the  rabbins,  give  it  the  sense  of  stones,  pebbles,  gi'avel,  and 
make  it  a  poetical  equivalent  to  sand.  J.  1).  Michaelis  and  most  of  the 
later  Germans  make  it  an  equivalent  to  CVP,  with  a  feminine  tennination, 
because  figuratively  used.  The  antithesis  is  then  between  thy  bowels 
and  its  bowels,  viz.  those  of  the  sea  ;  and  the  whole  clause,  supplyhig  the 
ellipsis,  will  read  thus,  the  offspring  of  thy  bouels  like  (the  offspring  of) 
its  bowels,  in  allusion  to  the  vast  increase  of  fishes,  which  J.  1).  Michaelis 
illustrates  by  saying  that  the  whale  leaves  enough  of  its  natural  food, 
the  herring,  to  supply  all  Europe  with  it  daily.  Ewald  has  returned 
to  the  old  interpretation,  which  he  defends  from  the  charge  of  being 
purely  conjectural,  by  tracing  both  D^VP  and  niyp  to  the  radical  idea  of 
softness,  the  one  being  applied  to  the  soft  inward  parts  of  the  body,  the 
other  to  the  soft  fine  particles  of  sand  or  gravel.  We  may  then  refer 
the  suffix,  not  to  the  remoter  antecedent  D^,  but  to  the  nearer  ^in. — His 
name.  We  must  either  suppose  an  abrupt  transition  from  the  second  to 
the  third  person,  or  make  sei'd  the  antecedent  of  the  pronoun,  which  is 
harsh  in  itself,  and  rendered  more  so  by  the  intervening  plural  forms. 
Lowth  as  lasual  restores  uniformity  by  reading  thy  name  on  the  authority 
of  the  Scptuagint  version.  Yitringa  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  genea- 
logical tables  and  the  custom  of  erasing  names  from  them  under  certain 
circumstances.  But  all  the  requisitions  of  the  text  are  answered  by  the 
common  understanding  of  name,  in  such  connections,  as  equivalent  to 
memory.  The  excision  or  destruction  of  the  name  from  before  God  is 
expressive  of  entire  extermination. — The  precise  sense  of  the  futures  in  this 
clause  is  somewhat  dubious,  ]Most  intei-preters  assimilate  them  to  the 
futures  of  the  foregoing  clause,  as  in  the  English  Version  [should  not  have 
been  cut  off  nor  dcsijoyed).     Those   who  understand   the  first  clause   as 


222  ISAIAH  XLVJJL  [Veb.  20,  21. 

expressing  a  wish  in  relation  to  the  present  or  the  future,  make  this  last  a 
promise,  either  absolute  (his  name  shall  not  be  cut  off)  or  conditional  {his 
name  should  not  be  cut  off).  Nor  is  this  direct  constniction  of  the  last 
clause  inconsistent  with  the  old  interpretation  of  the  first ;  as  we  may  sup- 
pose that  the  \\Titer,  after  wishing  that  the  people  had  escaped  the  strokes 
provoked  hy  their  iniquities,  declares  that  even  now  they  shall  not  be  entirely 
destroyed.  This  is  precisely  the  sense  given  to  the  clause  in  the  Septua- 
gint  [oxibi  vDv  ao-cXf/j-a/),  and  is  recommended  by  two  considerations  :  first, 
the  absence  of  the  Vav  conversive,  which  in  the  other  clause  may  indicate 
an  indirect  construction  ;  and  secondly,  its  perfect  agreenit-nt  with  the 
whole  drift  of  the  passage,  and  the  analogy  of  others  like  it,  where  the 
explanation  of  the  suflerings  of  the  people  as  the  fruit  of  their  own  sin  is 
combined  with  a  promise  of  exemption  from  complete  destruction. 

20.  Go  forth  from  Bahel  !  This  is  a  prediction  of  the  deliverance  from 
Babylon,  clothed  in  the  form  of  an  exhortation  to  escape  from  it.  Wo 
have  no  right  to  assume  a  capricious  change  of  subject,  or  a  want  of  all 
coherence  with  what  goes  before.  The  connection  may  be  thus  stated. 
After  the  general  reproof  and  promise  of  the  nineteenth  verse,  he  recurs  to 
the  great  example  of  deliverance  so  often  introduced  before.  As  if  he  had 
said,  Israel,  notwithstanding  his  unworthiness,  shall  be  preserved  ;  even  in 
extremity  his  God  will  not  forsake  him  ;  even  from  Babylon  he  shall  be 
delivered  : — and  then  turning  in  prophetic  vision  io  the  future  exiles,  he 
invites  them  to  come  forth. — Flee  from  the  Chasdim  (or  Chafdces)  I 
Yitringa,  Gesenius,  and  most  other  writers,  suj^ply  V?^  before  D*??;'?,  or 
regard  the  latter  as  itself  the  name  of  the  countrv.  (See  above,  on  chap, 
xlvii.  1.)  But  Maurer  well  says  that  he  sees  no  reason  why  we  may  not 
here  retain  the  proper  meaning  of  the  i)lural,  and  translate,  /lee  ye  from  the 
Chaldeans,  which  is  precisely  the  common  English  version  of  the  clause. — 
With  a  voice  of  joy.  The  last  word  properly  denotes  a  joyful  shout,  and 
not  articulate  song.  The  whole  phrase  means,  with  the  sound  or  noise  of 
such  a  shout.  It  has  been  made  a  question  whether  these  words  are  to  be 
connected  with  what  goes  before  or  with  what  follows.  Gesenius  and 
Hendewerk  prefer  the  former,  most  interpreters  the  latter  ;  but  Yitringa 
thinks  the  Masoretic  accents  were  intended  to  connect  it  equally  with  Injth 
parts  of  the  context,  as  in  chap.  xl.  8. —  Tell  this,  cause  it  to  be  htard. 
The  Hebrew  collocation  {tell,  cause  to  be  hand,  this)  cannot  be  retained  in 
English.  Utter  it  (cause  it  to  go  forth)  even  to  the  end  of  the  earth.  Com- 
pare chap.  xlii.  10,  xliii.  G.  tSny  ye,  Jehovah  hath  redeemed  his  sen-ant 
Jacob.  The  present  form,  adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Augusti,  is  not 
only  unnecessary  but  injurious  to  the  eHect.  These  are  words  to  be  uttered 
after  the  event ;  and  the  preterite  must  therefore  be  strictly  understood,  as 
it  is  l»v  most  interpreters.  The  deliverance  from  Babylon  is  here  referred 
to,  only  as  one  great  example  of  the  general  truth  that  God  saves  his  people. 

2.1.  And  they  thirsted  not  in  the  desert  (throu;.'h  which)  Ac  made  them  go. 
The  translation  of  the  verbs  as  futures,  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  Hit/.ip,  is 
cntirelv  ungramnintical  and  inconsistent  with  the  obvious  intention  of  the 
writer  to  present  these  as  the  words  of  an  annunciation  after  the  event. 
The  present  fonii,  adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Germans, 
although  less  erroneous,  is  a  needless  and  enfeebling  evasion  of  the  true 
tense,  which  is  ])urely  descriptive.  ]yater  from  a  rock  he  made  to  flow  for 
them  •  and  he  clave  the  rock  and  uatcrs  gushed  out.  There  is  evident 
reference  here  to  the  miraculous  supply  of  water  in  the  jouniey  through  the 
\iildcmes8.    (Exod.  xvii.  0,  Num.  xx.  11,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  16.)     It  might  even 


Veh.  22.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  223 

seem  as  if  the  writer  meant  to  state  these  facts  historically.  Such  at  least 
would  he  the  simpler  exposition  of  his  words,  which  would  then  contain  a 
reference  to  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  as  the  gi-eat  historical  example  of 
deliverance.  As  if  he  had  said,  Relate  how  God  of  old  redeemed  his  ser- 
vant Jacob  out  of  Egypt,  and  led  him  through  the  wilderness,  and  slaked 
his  thirst  with  water  from  the  solid  rock.  Most  interpreters,  however,  are 
agreed  in  applying  the  words  to  the  deliverance  from  Babylon.  Kimchi 
understands  the  language  strictly,  and  expresses  his  surprise  that  no 
account  of  this  great  miracle  was  left  on  record  by  Ezra  or  any  other 
inspired  historian.  Gesenius  sneers  at  the  Rabbin's  ndirete,  but  thinks  it 
matched  by  the  simplicity  of  some  Christian  WTiters  who  know  not  what  to 
make  of  ideal  anticipations  which  were  never  realised.  Perhaps,  however, 
the  absurdity  is  not  altogether  on  the  side  where  he  imagines  it  to  lie. 
Kimchi  was  right  in  assuming,  that  if  the  flight  and  the  march  through  the 
wilderness  were  literal  (a  supposition  common  to  Gesenius  and  himself), 
then  the  accompanying  circumstances  must  receive  a  literal  interpretation 
likewise,  unless  there  be  something  in  the  text  itself  to  indicate  the  con- 
trary. Unless  we  are  prepared  to  assume  an  irrational  confusion  of 
language,  setting  all  interpretation  at  defiance,  our  only  alternative  is  to 
conclude,  on  the  one  hand,  that  Isaiah  meant  to  foretell  a  miraculous 
supply  of  water  during  the  journey  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem,  or  that 
the  whole  description  is  a  figurative  one,  meaning  simply  that  the  wonders 
of  the  exodus  should  be  renewed.  Against  the  former  is  the  silence  of 
history,  alleged  by  Kimchi  ;  against  the  latter,  nothing  but  the  foregone 
conclusion  that  this  and  other  like  passages  must  relate  exclusively  to 
Babylon  and  the  return  from  exile. 

22.  There  is  no  peace,  saith  Jehovah,  to  the  wicked.  The  meaning  of 
this  sentence,  in  itself  considered,  is  too  clear  to  be  disputed.  There  is 
more  doubt  as  to  its  connection  with  w^hat  goes  before.  That  it  is  a  mere 
aphorism,  added  to  this  long  discourse,  like  a  moral  to  an  ancient  l\ible, 
can  only  satisfy  the  minds  of  those  who  look  upon  the  whole  book  as  a 
series  of  detached  and  incoherent  sentences.  Vastly  more  rational  is  the 
opinion,  now  the  current  one  among  intei-preters,  that  this  verse  was 
intended  to  restrict  the  operation  of  the  foregoing  promises  to  true  believers, 
or  the  genuine  Israel ;  as  if  he  had  said.  All  this  will  God  accompHsh  for 
his  people,  but  not  for  the  wicked  among  them.  The  grand  conclusion  to 
which  all  tends  is,  that  God  is  all  and  man  nothing  ;  that  even  the  chosen 
people  must  be  suflerers,  because  they  are  sinners  ;  that  peculiar  favour 
confers  no  immunity  to  sin  or  exemption  from  responsibility,  but  that  even 
in  the  Israel  of  God  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  most  extraordinary  privi- 
leges, it  still  remains  for  ever  true  that  "  there  is  no  peace  to  the  wicked." 


CHAPTER  XLIX. 

This  chapter,  like  the  whole  division  which  it  introduces,  has  for  its  great 
theme  the  relation  of  the  chui'ch  to  the  world,  or  of  Israel  to  the  Gentiles. 
The  relation  of  the  foimer  to  Jehovah  is  of  course  still  kept  in  view,  but 
with  less  exclusive  prominence  than  in  the  First  Part  (chap,  xl.-xlviii).  The 
doctrine  there  established  and  illustrated,  as  to  the  mutual  relation  of  the'- 
body  and  the  head,  is  here  assumed  as  the  basis  of  more  explicit  teachings 
with  respect  to  theii"  joint  relation  to  the  world  and  the  great  design  of  their 


224  ISAIAH  XLIX.  [Ver.  1. 

vocation.     There  is  not  so  much  a  change  of  topics  as  a  change  in  their 
rt'lntivo  position  and  proportions. 

Tlie  chapter  opens  with  an  exhihition  of  the  Messiah  and  his  people,  under 
one  ideal  person,  as  the  great  appointed  Teacher,  Apostle,  and  Restorer  of 
the  apostate  nations,  vers.  1-9.  This  is  followed  by  a  promise  of  divine 
protection  and  of  glorious  enlargement,  attended  by  a  joyous  revolution  in 
the  state  of  the  whole  world,  vers.  10-13.  The  doubts  and  apprehensions 
of  the  church  herself  are  twice  recited  under  ditTerent  forms,  vers.  14  and 
24,  and  as  often  met  and  silenced,  first  by  repeated  and  still  stronger  j>ro- 
mises  of  God's  unchanging  love  to  his  people  and  of  their  glorious  enlarge- 
ment and  success,  vers.  15-23  ;  then  by  an  awful  threatening  of  destruc- 
tion to  their  enemies  and  his,  vers,  25,  2G. 

1.  Hearken  ye  islands  unto  me,  atid  attend  yc  nations  from  afar.  Here, 
as  in  chap.  xli.  1.  hi'  turns  to  the  Gentiles  and  addresses  them  direi-tly. 
There  is  the  same  diversity  in  this  case  as  the  explanation  of  D?N.  Some 
give  it  the  vague  sense  of  nations,  others  that  of  distant  nations,  while  J.  D. 
Michaelis  again  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  by  making  it  mean  Europe 
and  Asia  Minor.  Intermediate  between  these  is  the  meaning  coasts,  ap- 
proved by  Ewald  and  others.  l?ut  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason 
for  departing  from  the  sense  of  islinds,  which  may  bo  considered  as  a 
poetical  representative  of  foreign  and  especially  of  distant  nations,  although 
not  as  d  rectly  expressing  that  idea. — From  o/or  is  not  merely  o/  a  distance 
(although  this  explanation  niiglit,  in  case  of  necessity,  be  justified  by  usage), 
but  suggests  the  idea  of  attention  being  drawn  to  a  central  point y?om  other 
points  around  it. — Jchnnih  from  the  uomh  hath  called  me,  frnvi  the  IhiutIs 
(if  nil/  mother  he  hath  vieutioiied  my  name  (or  literally,  caused  it  to  be  re- 
membered). This  docs  not  necessarily  denote  the  literal  predrction  of  an 
individual  by  name  before  his  birth,  nltbongh,  as  HiDgstenberg  suggests, 
there  may  be  an  intentional  allusion  to  that  circumstance,  involved  in  the 
wider  meaning  of  the  words,  viz,  that  of  personal  election  and  designation 
to  ofhce.  Vitringa's  explanation  of  1P3P  as  meaning  before  birth,  is  not 
only  unauthorized,  but  as  gratuitous  as  Noyes's  euphemistic  paraphrase, 
in  ntif  very  childhood.  The  expression  from  the  iromb  may  be  either  in- 
clusive of  the  period  before  birth,  or  restricted  to  the  actual  vocation  of  the 
speaker  to  his  providential  work, — The  speaker  in  this  and  the  following 
verses  is  not  Isaiah,  either  as  an  indi\ndual  or  as  a  representative  of  the 
prophets  generally,  on  either  of  which  stippositions  the  terms  used  are  in- 
appropriate and  extravagant.  Neither  the  prophets  as  a  class,  nor  Isaiah 
as  a  single  prophet,  had  been  entrusted  with  a  message  to  the  (Jentiles.  In 
favour  of  supposing  that  the  speaker  is  Israel,  the  chosen  i>eople,  there  are 
vari(>us  considerations,  but  especially  the  aid  which  this  h}-]iothesis  atVords 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  third  verse.  At  the  same  time  there  are  dear 
indications  that  the  words  are  the  words  of  the  Messiah.  These  two  most 
plausible  interjiretations  may  be  reconciled  and  blended,  by  assuming  that 
in  this  case,  as  in  chap.  xlii.  1,  the  ideal  speaker  is  the  Messiah  considered 
as  the  head  of  bis  people  and  as  forming  with  them  one  complex  jierson, 
according  to  the  canon  of  Tichonins  already  quoted,  de  I'hristo  et  Corpora 
ejus  Kcclfsirt  taiitjuom  de  una  jiersoua  in  Scri]>tuni  strpiiis  mentionnn  fieri, 
nii  (jiitrdnm  trihunntiir  qmr  Intitam  in  Cajnil.  qwrdam  ifua  tanluvi  in  (.'orpuB 
confjhiinit,  tpitrdam  vcro  in  ntrumqtie.  The  objections  to  this  assumption 
liere  an-  for  the  most  part  negative  and  suj^erficial.  That  of  Hcngstenlu  rg, 
that  if  this  were  the  true  interiirftati(»n  here,  it  would  admit  of  beiug  carried 
out  elsewhere,  is  really  a  strong  proof  of  its  truth  ;  as  we  have  seen  con- 


Ver.  2,  3.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  225 

elusive  reasons,  indepenJcnth'  of  this  case,  to  explain  the  parallel  passage 
in  chap.  xlii.  1  ou  precisely  the  same  principle.  The  whole  question  as  to 
the  suhjccts  and  connections  of  these  Later  Prophecies  has  made  a  very 
sensihle  advance  towards  satisfactory  solution  since  the  date  of  the  Chris- 
tolog}-,  as  may  he  learned  hy  comparing  the  general  analysis  and  special 
expositions  of  the  latter  with  the  corresponding  passages  of  ILivcrnick  and 
Drechsler.  If,  as  we  have  seen  cause  to  helieve,  the  grand  theme  of  this 
whole  hook  is  the  church,  in  its  relation  to  its  Head  and  to  the  World,  the 
anterior  presumption  is  no  longer  against  but  decidedly  in  favour  of  tho 
reference  of  this  verse  to  the  Head  and  the  Body  as  one  person,  a  reference 
confirmed,  as  we  shall  see,  by  clear  New  Testament  authority. 

2.  And  he  hath  jjlaccd  (i.  e.  rendered  or  made)  my  mouth  like  a  sharp 
snord.^  By  mouth  we  are  of  course  to  understand  speech,  discourse.  The 
comparison  is  repeated  and  explained  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (iv,  12) : 
*'  The  word  of  God  is  quick  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than  any  two-edged 
sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the 
joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart."  In  both  cases  these  qualities  are  predicated,  not  of  literal  speech 
merely,  but  of  the  instruction  of  which  it  is  the  natural  and  common  instru- 
ment. As  tropical  parallels,  Lowth  refers  to  Pindar's  frequent  description 
of  his  verses  as  darts,  but  especially  to  the  famous  panegyric  of  Eupolis  on 
Pericles,  that  he  alone  of  the  orators  left  a  sting  in  those  who  heard  him  {(lovog 
ruv  hriTb^uy  to  xivroov  ey/.uTi}.n~e  roTg  axDou/Msvoi;). —  Tn  the  shadoio  of  his 
hand  he  hid  vie.  It  has  been  made  a  question  whether  in  the  shadow  of  his 
hand  means  in  his  hand  or  under  it;  and  if  the  latter,  whether  there  is  re- 
ference to  the  usual  position  of  the  sword-belt,  or  to  the  concealment  of  the 
drawn  sword  or  dagger  under  the  arm  or  in  the  sleeve.  Most  interpreters, 
however,  prefer  the  obvious  sense,  in  the  protection  of  his  hand,  or  rather 
in  its  darkness,  since  the  reference  is  not  so  much  to  safely  as  to  conceal- 
ment. Thus  understood,  the  figure  is  appropriate  not  only  to  the  personal 
Messiah,  but  to  the  ancient  church,  as  his  jnx'cursor  and  representative, 
in  which  high  character  it  was  not  known  for  ages  to  the  nations. — And  he 
placed  me  for  (that  is,  rendered  me,  or,  used  me  as)  a  polished  arrow. 
This  is  the  parallel  expression  to  the  first  member  of  the  other  clause. 
What  is  there  called  a  sword  is  here  an  arrow.  The  essential  idea  is  of 
course  the  same,  viz.  that  of  penetrating  power,  but  perhaps  with  an  ad- 
ditional allusion  to  the  directness  of  its  aim  and  the  swiftness  of  its  flight. 
The  common  version  shaft  is  not  entirely  accurate,  the  Hebrew  word  denot- 
ing strictly  the  metallic  head  of  the  arrow.  The  Septuagint  gives  "i-li^  the 
sense  of  chosen  or  elect,  which  is  retained  by  Vitriuga  ;  but  most  inter- 
preters prefer  the  sense  of  polished,  which  is  near  akin  to  that  of  sharpened, 
sharp. —  Tn  his  quiver  he  has  hid  me.  This  is  the  corresponding  image  to 
the  hiding  in  the  shadow  of  God's  hand.  It  is  still  more  obvious  in  this 
case  that  the  main  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  not  protection  but  conceal- 
ment. The  archer  keeps  the  arrow  in  his  quiver  not  merely  that  it  may  be 
safe,  but  that  it  may  be  ready  for  use  and  unobserved  until  it  is  used. 

8.  A7id  he  (Jehovah)  said  to  me,  Thou  art  my  servant,  i.  e.  my  instru- 
ment or  agent  constituted  such  for  a  specific  and  important  purpose.  In 
this  same  character  both  Israel  and  the  Messiah  have  before  been  introduced. 
There  is  therefore  the  less  reason  for  giving  any  other  than  the  strict 
sense  to  the  words  which  follow,  Israel  in  whom  1  will  be  (jhrificd  or  glorify 
myself.     The  version  /  will  glory  seems  inadequate,  and  not  sufliciently 

VOL.  II.  p 


226  ISAIAH  XLIX.  [A'er.  4,  5. 

sustaincfl  by  usnpc.  Gesenius,  unable  to  reconcile  tliis  form  of  address 
with  the  h\p()thesis  that  the  spenker  is  I'^aiiih  or  the  Prophets  as  a  class, 
proposes  in  his  commentary  what  had  been  before  proposed  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  to  expiinqc  the  word  /'f^Tv'^  J^  spurious  ;  a  desperate  device 
which  he  abandons  in  the  second  edition  of  his  version,  and  adopts  the 
Opinion  of  Umbreit,  that  the  Israel  of  this  passage  is  the  chosen  people  as 
a  whole,  or  with  respect  to  its  better  portion.  The  other  devices,  wliich 
have  been  adapted  for  the  purpose  of  evauin}^  this  dilBculty,  althouf^h  not 
BO  violent,  arc  equally  unfounded.  K.fh  "  It  is  Israel  in  whom  I  will  be 
glorified  by  thee."  "  Thou  art  an  Israelite  indeed,  or  a  genuine  descendant 
of  Israel."  Another  gratuitous  hypothesis  is  that  of  a  sudden  apostrophe 
to  Israel  after  addressing  the  Messiah  or  the  Prophet.  The  only  supposi- 
tion which  adheres  to  the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  sentence,  and 
yet  agrees  with  the  context,  is  the  first  above  mentioned,  viz.  that  of  com- 
plex t<ubjcct  including  the  Messiah  and  his  people,  or  the  body  with  its  head. 

4.  And  I  ^aid,  in  opposition  or  reply  to  what  Jehovah  said.  The  pro- 
noun in  Hebrew,  being  not  essential  to  the  sense,  is  emphatic.  Jn  vain 
{or  for  a  vain  thing,  i.e.  an  unattainable  object)  hare  I  toiled.  The 
Hebrew  word  suggests  the  idea  of  exhaustion  and  weariness. — For  empti- 
ness and  vanity  my  strength  hare  I  consumed.  But  my  riyht  is  icilh  Jehovah 
and  my  ucrh  with  my  God.  '"1?!?^  is  no  doubt  here  used  in  the  same  sense 
as  in  chap.  xl.  10,  viz.  that  of  recompencc,  iro;/.- being  put  for  its  result  or  its 
equivalent.  If  so,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  *CSp'P  here  means  that  to 
which  I  have  a  right  or  am  entitled,  that  is  to  say  in  this  connection,  my 
reward  or  recompencc.  This  explanation  of  the  term  is  certainly  more 
natural  than  that  which  makes  it  mean  my  cause,  my  suit,  as  this  necdhssly 
introduces  a  new  figure,  viz.  that  of  litigation  over  and  above  that  of  labour 
or  service  for  hire.  This  clause  is  universally  explained  as  an  expres.'^ion 
of  strong  confidence  that  God  would  make  good  what  was  warning,  by 
bestowing  the  reward  which  had  not  yet  been  realised.  ]\'ilh  thereforo 
means  in  his  possession,  and  at  his  disposal.  The  next  verso  shews  that 
the  failure  here  complained  of  is  a  failure  to  accomplish  the  great  work 
before  described,  viz.  that  of  converting  the  world. 

5.  And  now,  saith  Jehovah,  my  maker  (or  wlio  formed  me)  from  the  womli, 
for  a  .ferrant  to  himself,  i.  e.  to  be  his  servant  in  the  sense  before  explained. 

The  now  may  be  here  taken  cither  in  its  temporal  or  logical  sen.se. — To 
convert  (or  briny  hitck)  Jacob  to  him.  This  cannot  mean  to  restore  from 
exile ;  for  how  could  this  work  be  ascribed  directly  either  to  the  Prophet  or 
the  Prophets,  or  to  the  Messiah,  or  to  Israel  himself?  It  might  indeed 
apply  to  Cyrus,  but  the  whole  context  is  at  war  with  such  an  explanation. 
All  that  is  left,  then,  is  to  give  the  verb  the  sense  of  bringing  back  to  a  state 
of  allegiance  from  one  of  alienation  and  revolt.  Hut  how  could  Jacob  or 
Israel  bo  said  to  bring  himself  back  ?  This  is  the  grand  objection  to  the 
assumption  that  the  servant  of  Jehovah  was  Israel  himself.  In  order  to 
evade  it,  Rosenniiiller  and  Ilit/.ig  deny  that  3l31!i7  is  dependent  on  the 
words  immediately  preceding,  and  refer  it  to  Jehovah  himself,  that  he  iniyht 
briny  bach  Jacob  to  himself.  But  this  construction,  not  an  obvious  or 
natural  one  in  iti^ilf,  if  hero  asstimed,  mubt  be  ropfated  again  and  again  in 
the  following  verses,  where  it  is  still  more  strained  and  inappropriat4\  Nor 
is  it  necessarj'  even  here,  to  justify  the  reference  of  the  passage  to  Israel, 
which  may  be  effeclid  by  assuming  a  coincident  refrrenco  to  the  Messiah. 
as  the  head  of  tho  body,  and  as  such  conspicuously  active  in  restoring 


Ver.  G.J  ISAIAH  XLIX.  227 

Israel  itself  to  Gofl. — This  is  one  of  the  cases  where  the  idea  of  tho  head 
predominates  above  that  of  the  body,  because  they  are  related  to  each  other 
as  the  subject  and  object  of  one  and  the  same  action.  The  vocation  of 
Israel  was  to  reclaim  the  nations  ;  that  of  the  Messiah  was  first  to  reclaim 
Israel  himself  and  then  the  nations. — In  the  next  clause  there  is  an  ancient 
variation  of  the  text,  preserved  in  the  Kethib  and  Keri  of  the  Masora.  The 
marginal  emendation  is  v  to  him,  which  many  modern  intei*pretcrs  prefer, 
and  make  it  for  the  most  part  a  dependent  clause,  to  restore  Jacob  to  him, 
and  that  Israel  may  be  gathered  to  him.  In  the  sentence  construed  thus,  it 
might  seem  strange  that  different  pripositions  should  be  used  in  the  two 
parallel  members,  and  that  I?  should  stand  before  the  verb  instead  of  closing 
tho  phrase  as  1*??<  docs.  But  these  might  be  considered  trivial  points,  were 
it  not  that  the  marginal  reading  is  so  easily  accounted  for,  as  an  attempt  to 
remove  the  ditficulties  of  the  older  text,  in  which  the  i**?  has  its  natural  and 
ncccssar}'  place  before  the  verb.  Luther,  adhering  to  the  textual  reading, 
gives  the  verb  an  unfiivourable  sense,  that  Israel  may  not  be  snatched  away 
or  carried  o^.  But  most  of  those  who  retain  the  old  reading  give  the  verb 
the  favourable  sense  of  gathering  that  which  is  dispersed.  Some  then  read 
the  clause  as  an  interrogation,  ahall  not  Israel  be  gathered?  Others  as  a 
concession,  although  Israel  be  not  gathered.  Others  as  a  simple  affirmation 
in  the  present  tenso,  and  (yet)  Israel  is  not  gathered.  All  that  is  needed 
to  give  this  last  tho  preference  is  the  substitution  of  tho  future  for  the  pre- 
sent, after  which  the  whole  verso  may  be  paraphrased  as  follows  :  Thug 
saith  Jehovah,  who  formed  mo  from  the  womb  as  a  servant  for  himself,  to 
restore  Jacob  to  him,  and  (yet)  Israel  will  not  be  gathered— and  (yet)  I  shall 
be  honoured  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah,  and  my  God  has  (already)  been  my 
strength.  The  first  yet  introduced  to  shew  the  true  connection  is  equivalent 
to  saying,  though  I  was  called  and  raised  up  for  this  purpose ;  the  other  13 
equivalent  to  saying,  although  Israel  will  not  be  gathered.  This  last  phrase 
may  be  taken  as  a  simple  prediction  that  they  should  not  be  gathered,  or  a 
declaration  that  they  would  not  (consent  to)  be  gathered.  This  last,  if  not 
expressed,  is  implied. — The  translation  of  ^ty  as  meaning  my  praise  is 
entirely  gratuitous  and  hurtful  to  the  sense,  which  is,  that  God  has  sus- 
tained him  notwithstanding  the  apparent  failure  of  his  mission.  The 
general  meaning  of  the  verse  is  that  jMessiah  and  his  people  should  be 
honoured  in  the  sight  of  God,  although  the  pi'oximato  design  of  their  mis- 
sion, the  salvation  of  the  literal  Israel,  might  seem  to  fail. 

0.  And  he  said.  This  docs  not  introduce  anew  discourse  or  declaration, 
but  resumes  the  construction  which  had  been  interrupted  by  the  parenthetic 
clauses  of  the  foregoing  verse.  It  is  in  fact  a  repetition  of  the  njn^  "ips  at 
the  beginning  of  that  verse.  And  now  saith  Jehovah  {tvho  formed  rie/rom 
the  womb  to  be  a  servant  to  himself,  to  restore  Jacob  to  him,  and  yet  Israel 
will  not  be  gathered,  and  yet  I  shall  he  honoured  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah, 
and  my  God  has  been  my  strength) — he  said  or  says  as  follows.  It  is 
a  light  thing  that  thou  shouldest  be  my  servarit.  The  original  form  of 
expression  is  so  purely  idiomatic,  that  it  cannot  be  retained  in  Eng- 
lii^h.  According  to  the  usual  analogy,  the  Hebrew  words  would  seem 
to  moan  it  is  lighter  than  thy  being  my  servant;  but  this  can  be  resolved 
into  it  is  too  light  for  thee  to  be  my  servant,  with  at  least  as  much  ease  as  a 
hundred  other  formulas,  the  sense  of  which  is  obvious,  however  difficult  it 
may  be  to  account  for  the  expression.  Hitzig's  assertion,  therefore,  that  it 
is  at  variance  with  the  laws  of  thought  and  language,  though  adopted  by 


228  ISAIAH  AZyA.  [Ver.  7. 

Geseuius  in  his  TbesauriH,  is  not  only  iirbitittrv  but  abburd,  as  it  assumes 
the  possibility  of  ascertaining  and  detormininj:;  those  laws  independently  ot" 
actual  usage.  The  most  that  can  be  said  with  truth  is  that  the  fonn  of 
expression  is  anomalous  and  rare,  though  not  unpanilleled,  as  may  be  seen 
by  a  comparison  of  this  verso  with  Ezek.  viii.  17.  The  sense,  if  it  wt-rc 
doubtful  in  itself,  would  bo  clear  from  the  context,  which  requires  this  to  be 
taken  as  a  declaration  that  it  was  not  enough  for  the  Messiah  (and  the 
people  as  his  representative)  to  labour  for  the  natural  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham, but  he  and  they  must  have  a  wider  field. — Thy  leimj  to  vie  a  seirunt 
to  raise  up  the  tribi's  a/  Jacob,  and  the  presened  of  larael  to  restore.  This 
form  of  expression  shews  very  clearly  that  in  this  and  the  parallel  passages 
servant  is  not  used  indefinitely  but  in  the  specific  sense  of  an  appointed 
instrument  or  agent  to  perform  a  certain  work.  That  work  is  here  the 
raisin;/  up  of  Jacob,  a  phrase  which  derives  light  from  the  panillel  expres- 
sion, to  restore  the  preserved  of  Israel,  i.  e.  to  raise  them  from  a  state  of 
degradation,  and  to  restore  them  from  a  state  of  estrangement.  A  specific 
reference  to  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  exile  would  be  gratuitous  ; 
much  more  the  restriction  of  the  words  to  that  event,  which  is  merely 
included  as  a  signal  instance  of  deliverance  and  restoration  in  the  general. 
The  textual  reading  *"?'>'?  appears  to  be  a  verbal  adjective  occun-ing  no- 
where else,  and  therefore  exchanged  by  the  Masoretic  critics  for  the  passive 
participle  *>1Vp,  J.  D,  Alichaelis,  more  ingeniously  than  wisely,  makes 
"I'VJ  synonymous  with  "^V?.  (chap.  xi.  1)  a  shoot  or  sprout,  and  gives  to 
t33y.'  the  corresponding  sense  of  a  twig  or  branch — the  shoots  of  Jacol»  and 
the  twigs  of  Israel.  All  other  writers  seems  to  take  the  latter  in  its  usual 
sense  of  tribe,  and  the  other  in  that  of  preserved — meaning  the  elect  or 
"  such  as  should  bo  saved." — And  I  hare  ifivrn  thee  Jor  a  liijht  of  the 
(renltles  (^na  in  chap.  xlii.  C),  to  he  vnj  sal  rat  Ion  even  to  the  end  of  the  earth. 
This,  according  to  the  English  idiom,  would  seem  to  mean  that  thou  uiai/est 
he  //)//  sal  ration,  &c. ;  but  Hebrew  usage  equally  admits  of  the  inter- 
pretation, that  uuj  salvation  nimj  he  (i.  e.  extend)  to  the  end  of  the  earth, 
which  is  in  fact  preferred  by  most  interpreters.  The  meaning  of  this  versc' 
is  not,  as  some  suppose,  that  the  heathen  shituld  be  given  to  him  in  ex- 
change and  compensation  for  the  unbelieving  Jews,  but  that  his  mission  to 
the  latter  was,  from  the  beginning,  but  a  small  jmrt  of  his  liigh  vocation. 
Tlie  application  of  this  verse  by  Paul  and  liarnal)as,  in  their  atldress  to  the 
Jews  of  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (Acts  xiii.  47)  is  very  important,  as  a  confirma- 
tion of  the  hypothesis  assumed  above,  that  the  person  here  described  is  not 
the  Messiah  exclusively,  but  that  his  people  are  included  in  the  sulject  of 
the  description. — "  It  was  ncce.'^sar}'  that  the  word  of  God  should  first  have 
been  spoken  unto  you  ;  but  seeing  yc  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves 
unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles.  For  so  iiatji  thk 
LoRo  coMMANDKD  I's  (saving),  I  have  set  thee  to  bo  a  light  of  the  Gentiles, 
that  thou  shouldst  be  for  salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth."  Although 
this,  as  Hengstenberg  observes,  is  not  irreconcilable  with  the  exclusive 
Messianic  explatiation  of  the  verso  before  us.  its  agreement  with  the  wider 
explanation  is  too  striking  to  bo  deemed  fortuititus. 

7.  yViiM  saith  Jehovah,  the  liedenner  of  Israel,  his  Ho'y  One,  to  the 
heartily  despised,  to  the  nation  excitintj  abhorrence.  'I'he  two  epithets  in 
this  clause  are  exceedingly  obscure  and  difficult.  '"^'3  has  been  variously 
explained  as  an  infinitive,  a  jiassive  participle,  and  an  a'ijective  in  the  ron- 
Btruct  htato,  which  last  is  adopted  by  Geseniiis  and  most  later  writers ;  K'BJI 
is  commonly  cxpliiiiK'd  as  meaning  tnen,  chieily  because  tlie  parallel  expression 


Ver.  8,  9.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  229 

in  Ps.  xxii.  7  is  ^V  *''^^'  Another  explanation  takes  it  in  its  proper  sense  of 
smd,  and  understands  it  to  qualify  '"IT?,  as  meanin<4  despised  from  the  soul, 
ex  amtino.  (Compare  ^'??.?  '?'';',  Ps.  xvii.  9.)  The  meaning  men  belongs 
to  the  word  only  in  certain  cases,  chiefly  those  in  which  we  use  the  same 
expression,  not  a  soul,  forty  souls,  poor  soul,  Ac.  No  one,  from  this 
English  usage,  would  infer  that  hated  by  souls  meant  hated  by  persons. — 
Tlie  other  epithet  is  still  more  difficult,  as  it  is  necessary  to  determine 
whether  ^V^p  has  its  usual  sense,  and  whether  ^"15  is  its  subject  or  its 
object.  Wlu'in  the  nation  abliorrelh,  uho  ahhorrcth  the  nation,  ivho  excites 
the  abhorrence  of  the  nation,  the  nation  uliich  excites  abhorrence, — all  these 
are  possible  translations  of  the  Hebrew  words,  among  which  interpreters 
choose  according  to  their  dift'cirent  views  respecting  the  whole  passage.  In 
any  case  it  is  descriptive  of  deep  abasement  and  general  contempt,  to  be 
exchanged  hereafter  for  an  opposite  condition. — To  a  servant  of  ndcrs,  one 
who  has  hitherto  been  subject  to  them  but  is  now  to  receive  their  homage. 
— h'intjs  shall  see  (not  hint  or  them,  but  it,  viz.  that  which  is  to  happen)  and 
rise  up  (as  a  token  of  respect),  princes  [shall  see)  and  how  theinsilres.  It  is 
an  ingenious  thought  of  Hitzig,  though  perhaps  too  retined,  that  kings, 
being  usually  seated  in  the  presence  of  others,  arc  described  as  rising  from 
their  thrones ;  while  princes  and  nobles,  who  usualh'  stand  in  the  presence 
of  their  sovereigns,  arc  described  as  falling  prostrate. — For  the  sake  of 
Jehovah  rvho  is  faithful,  (to  his  promises),  the  IIolij  One  of  Israel,  and  he 
hath  chosen  thee,  or  in  our  idiom,  uho  hath  chosen  thee.  This  last  clause  not 
only  ascribes  the  promised  change  to  the  power  of  God,  but  represents  it 
as  intended  solely  to  promote  his  glory. 

8.  I'hns  saith  Jehovah,  In  a  time  of  favour  have  I  heard  (ov  ansu-ivcd) 
thee,  and  in  a  day  of  salvation  have  I  helped  thee.  The  common  version, 
an  acceptable  time,  does  not  convey  the  sense  of  the  original,  which  signifies 
a  suitable  or  appointed  time  for  shewing  gi-ace  or  favour.  The  object  of 
address  is  still  the  Messiah  and  his  people,  whose  great  mission  is  again 
described.  And  I  will  keep  thee,  and  will  (jive  thee  for  a  covenant  of  the 
people,  i.  c.  of  men  in  general  (see  above,  chap.  xlii.  7),  to  raise  up  the  earth 
or  world  from  its  present  state  of  ruin,  and  to  cause  to  inherit  the  desolate 
heritages,  the  moral  wastes  of  heathenism.  There  is  allusion  to  the  divi- 
sion of  the  land  by  Joshua.  Here  again  we  have  clear  apostolical  authority 
for  applying  this  description  to  the  church,  or  people  of  God,  as  the  Body 
of  which  Christ  is  the  Head.  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  We  then  as 
workers  together  (with  him)  beseech  you  also  that  ye  receive  not  the  grace 
of  God  in  vain.  For  he  saith,  I  have  heard  thee  in  a  time  accepted,  and 
in  the  day  of  salvation  have  I  succoured  thee."  What  follows  is  no  part 
of  the  quotation  but  Paul's  comment  on  it.  "  Behold,  now  is  the  accepted 
time  ;  behold,  now  is  the  day  of  salvation."  (2  Cor.  vi.  2.)  This,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  citation  of  ver.  G  in  Acts  xiii.  47,  precludes  the  sup- 
position of  an  accidental  or  unmeaning  application  of  this  passage  to  the 
people  or  ministers  of  Chi'ist  as  well  as  to  himself. 

9.  To  say  to  those  bound,  Come  forth  ;  to  [those)  who  {are)  in  darJaiess, 
Be  revealed  (or  shew  yourselves).  10S?  might  here  be  taken  in  its  usual 
sense  after  verbs  of  speaking,  viz.  that  of  saying;  but  it  seems  more 
natural  to  make  it  a  correlative  of  the  infinitives  2'r?n?  and  ?'n^Ll<  to  raise 
up — ^>  cause  to  inherit — to  say.  Gesenius  paraphrases  rather  than  trans- 
lates •l^l'?,  come  to  the  light ;  which  is  carefully  copied  by  his  later  imita- 
tors as  a  faithful  version. — On  the  tcays  (or  roads)  they  shall  feed,  and  in 


230  ISAIAH  XLIX.  [Ver.  10-12. 

all  hare  hills  shall  he  their  pasture.  There  is  here  n  change  of  figure,  the 
dehvcred  being  represented  not  as  prisoners  or  freedmen,  but  as  flocks. 
Some  read  by  the  way  or  on  their  way  homeward  ;  but  it  is  commonly 
agreed  that  the  Prophet  simply  represents  the  flock  as  fimling  pasture  evt-n 
without  going  aside  to  seek  it,  and  even  in  the  most  unlikely  situations. 
The  restriction  of  these  figures  to  deliverance  from  Babylon,  can  seem 
natural  only  to  those  who  have  assumed  the  same  hypothesis  throughout 
the  foregoing  chapters. 

10.  They  -shall  not  hunger  and  they  shall  not  thirst,  and  there  shall  not 
smite  them  mirage  and  sun  ;  for  he  that  hath  mercy  on  them  shall  guide  them, 
and  by  .springs  of  uater  skull  he  lead  litem.  The  image  of  a  flock  is  still  con- 
tinued (compare  chap.  xl.  10,  11,  xli.  18,  xliii.  19).  ^X'  is  the  same  word 
that  is  now  universally  explained  in  chap.  xxxv.  7,  to  mean  the  mirage,  or 
delusive  appearance  of  water  in  the  desert  (see  above,  p.  88).  Jarchi 
explains  it  here  by  Din  heal,  which  liosenmiilier  supposes  to  be  here  sub- 
stituted for  the  proper  meaning.  Gesenius,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  heat 
the  primary,  and  mirage  the  secondary  sense.  The  reason  for  excluding 
the  latter  here  is  that  it  does  not  seem  to  suit  the  verb  smite ;  but  as  ihis 
verb  is  used  with  considerable  latitude,  and  as  a  zeugma  may  be  easily 
assumed,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Ivnobel  give  the  noun  the  same  sense  in  both 
places.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  understand  the  last  clause  to  mean, 
to  springs  of  water  he  shall  lead  tliem  ;  but  along  or  by  may  be  considered 
preferable,  as  suggesting  more  directly  the  idea  of  progressive  motion.  As 
he  leads  them  onwards,  he  conducts  them  along  streams  of  water.  This 
may,  however,  be  supposed  to  give  too  great  a  latitude  of  meaning  to  the 
word  translated  springs. — For  the  true  senscof  the  verb  ^D^*,  see  above, 
chap.  xl.  11. 

11.  And  I  will  place  all  my  mountains  for  the  way,  and  my  roads  shall 
be  high.  The  image  of  a  flock  is  now  exchanged  for  that  of  an  army  on  the 
march.  RosenmiiUer  omits  viy,  and  explains  '"D^  as  an  old  plural  fonn  ; 
to  which  (lesenius  objects,  not  only  as  gratuitous,  but  also  as  at  variance 
with  the  parallelism  which  requires  a  suflix.  My  mountains  is  by  some 
understood  to  mean  the  mountains  of  Israel ;  but  why  these  should  be 
mentioned  is  not  easily  explained.  Others  with  more  probability  explain 
it  as  an  indirect  assertion  of  God's  sovereignty  and  absolute  control,  nnd 
more  especially  his  power  to  remove  the  greatest  obstacles  from  the  way  of 
his  people.     The  original  expression  is  not  merely /^r  a  way  but /«»•  the 

way,  i.  e.  the  way  in  which  my  people  are  to  go,  n?pp  is  an  artificial  road 
or  causeway  made  by  throwing  up  the  earth,  which  seems  to  be  intended 
by  the  verb  at  the  close  (compare  the  use  of '<!D,  chap.  Ivii.  14,  hii.  19). 
The  discrepance  of  gender  in  the  verb  and  noun  is  an  anomaly,  but  one 
which  does  not  in  the  least  obscure  the  scn.sc  or  even  render  the  construc- 
tion doubtful.     Compare  with  this  verse  chap.  xxxv.  8,  xl.  1. 

12.  lieludd,  these  from  afar  shall  come,  and  behold  these  from  the  north 
and  from  the  sea,  nnd  therefrom  the  land  of  Sinim.  There  is  not  the  least 
doubt  as  to  the  literal  translation  of  tliis  verse ;  and  yet  it  has  been  a  fam- 
ous subject  of  discordant  expositions,  all  of  which  tuni  upon  the  question, 
what  is  meant  bv  the  land  of  Sinim.  In  addition  to  the  authors  usually 
cited,  respect  will  here  bo  had  to  an  interesting  monograph,  by  nn  Ameri- 
can missionary  in  China,  originally  published  in  the  Chinese  Repository, 
and  republished  in  tlii.-^  country  under  the  title  of  "  The  Land  of  Sinim,  or 
on  exposition  of  Isuiuh  xlix.  12,  together  with  a  brief  account  uf  the  Jews 


Vee.  12.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  231 

aud  Christians  in  China."  (Philadelphia,  1845.)  It  is  well  said  by  thia 
writer,  that  the  verse  before  us  is  the  central  point  of  the  prophetical  dis- 
course, of  which  it  forms  a  part,  inasmuch  as  it  embodies  the  great  promise, 
which  in  various  forms  is  exhibited  before  and  afterwards.  This  relation 
of  the  text  to  the  context  is  important,  because  it  creates  a  presumption  ia 
favour  of  the  widest  meaning  which  can  be  put  upon  the  terms  of  the  pre- 
diction, and  against  a  restricted  local  application.  A  preliminary  question, 
not  devoid  of  cxegetical  importance,  is  the  question  wilh  respect  to  the 
mutual  relation  of  the  clauses,  as  divided  in  the  Musoretic  text.  The 
doubtful  point  is  whether  the  first  clause  is  a  single  item  in  an  enumeration 
of  particulars,  or  a  generic  statement,  comprehending  the  specific  state- 
ments of  the  other  clause.  Almost  all  interpreters  assume  the  former 
ground,  and  understand  the  verse  as  naming  or  distinguishing  the  four 
points  of  the  compass,  j  But  the  other  supposition  is  ingeniously  main- 
tained by  the  missionary  in  China,  who  malies  the  first  clause  a  general 
prediction  that  converts  shall  come  from  the  remotest  nations,  aud  the  other 
an  explanation  of  this  vague  expression,  as  including  the  north,  the  west, 
and  the  land  of  Sinim.  Upon  this  construction  of  the  sentence,  which  is 
certainly  plausible  and  sti'iking,  it  may  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that 
it  is  not  necessary  for  the  end  at  which  the  author  seems  to  aim  in  urging 
it.  This  end  appears  to  be  the  securing  of  some  proof  that  the  specifica- 
tions of  the  second  clause  relate  to  dbtanl  countries.  But  Ibis  conclusion 
is  almost  as  obvious,  if  not  entirely  so,  upon  the  other  supposition ;  for  if 
one  of  the  four  quarters  is  denoted  by  the  phrase //-o;/;  ofar,  the  idea  neces- 
sarily suggested  is  that  all  the  other  points  enumerated  are  remote  likewise. 
The  same  thing  would,  moreover,  be  sufiiciently  apparent  from  the  whole 
drift  of  the  context  as  relating  not  to  proximate  or  local  changes,  but  to 
vast  and  universal  ones.  Nothing  is  gained,  therefore,  even  for  the  author's 
own  opinion,  by  the  admission  of  this  new  construction.  Another  observa- 
tion is  that  the  authority  on  which  he  seems  to  rest  its  claims  is  inconclusive, 
namely,  that  of  the  Masoretic  interpunction,  as  denoted  by  the  accents. 
He  slates  the  testimony  thus  afforded  much  too  strongly,  when  ho  speaks 
of  "  a  full  stop  "  after  the  clause  /Voni  afar  tJioj  shall  come,  and  points  tho 
verse  accordingly.  The  Athnacb,  as  a  general  rule,  indicates  the  pause  not 
at  the  end  but  in  the  midiUe  of  a  sentence  or  complete  proposition.  It  is 
therefore  prima  facie  proof  that  the  sense  is  incomplete  ;  and  although  there 
may  be  numerous  exceptions,  it  cannot  possibh-  demonstrate  that  the  first 
clause  does  not  form  a  part  of  the  same  .series  of  particulars  which  is  con- 
cluded in  the  second.  That  the  first  clause  frequently  contains  what  may 
be  logically  called  an  essential  portion  of  the  second,  any  reader  may  con- 
vince himself  I  }•  the  most  cursory  inspection  of  the  book  before  us ;  and  for 
two  decisive  examples  in  this  very  chapter,  he  has  only  to  examine  the  fifth 
and  seventh  verses,  where  the  substitution  of  a  "  full  stop  "  for  the  Athnach 
would  destroy  the  sense.  But  even  if  the  testimony  of  the  accents  were 
still  more  explicit  aud  decisive  than  it  is,  their  comparatively  recent  date 
an  I  their  mixed  relation  to  rhytbmical  or  musical,  as  well  as  to  gram- 
matical and  logical  distinctions,  make  it  always  proper  to  subject  their 
decisions  to  the  requisitions  of  the  test  and  context  in  themselves  con- 
sidered. Notwithstanding  tho  great  value  of  the  Masoretic  accents  as 
an  iiid  to  interpretation,  the  appeal  must  after  all  be  to  the  obvious 
meaning  of  tho  words,  or  in  default  of  this  to  analogy  and  usage.  The 
accents  leave  us,  therefore,  perfectly  at  liberty  to  look  upon  the  mutual 
relation  of  tho  clauses  as  an  open  question,  by  inquiring  whether  there 


282  ISAIAH  XLIX,  [Yeb.  12. 

is  any  valid  reason  for  departing  from  the  ancient  and  cnstomary  supposition 
that  the  four  points  of  the  compass,  or  at  least  four  quarters  or  directions, 
are  distinctly  mentioned.    This  leads  me,  in  the  third  place,  to  ohserve  that 
the  ohjection  which  the  missionary  makes  to  this  hypothesis,  apart  from  the 
question  of  accentuation,  is  an  insufficient  one.     He  ohjects  to  Vitringa's 
explanation  of  the  phrase  from  afar  as  meaning  from  the  east  (and  the 
same  objection  would,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  apply  to  the  explanation  of  it 
as  denoting /row  the  south),  that  afar  does  not  mean  the  east,  and  is  not 
elsewhere  used  to  denote  it.     But  what  Vitringa  means  to  say  is,  not  that 
afar  means  the  east,  but  simply  that  it  hire  supplies  its  place.*   If  any  one, 
in  numbering  the  points  of  the  compass,  should,  instead  of  a  compkte  enu- 
meration, say  the  north,  south,  cast,  and  so  on,  his  obvious  meaning  could 
not  well  be  rendered  doubtful  by  denying  that  atnl  so  on  ever  means  the 
west.     It  is  not  the  words  themselves,  but  the  place  which  they  occupy, 
and  their  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  sentence,  that  suggests  rather  than 
expresses  the  idea.     So  here  the  north,  the  west,  the  land  of  Sinim,  and 
afar,  may  denote  the  four  points  of  the  compass,  although  not  so  explicitly 
as  in  the  case  supposed,  because  in  that  before  us  we  have  not  merely  one 
doubtful  point,  but  two,  if  not  three;  and  also  because  the  one  most  dubious 
(from  afar)  is  not  at  the  end  like  and  so  on,  but  at  the  beginning.     Still  it 
seems  most  natural,  when  four  distinct  local  designations  are  given,  one  of 
which  is  certainly,  another  almost  certainly,  and  a  third  most  probably 
indicative  of  particular  quarters  or  directions,  to  conclude  that  the  fourth  is 
so  used  likewise,  however  vague  it  may  be  in  itself,  and  however  situated  in 
the  sentence.    The  presumption  thus  created  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that 
the  hypothesis  of  only  three  divisions  admits  that  the  whole  earth  was  meant 
to  be  included ;  and  it  thus  becomes  a  question,  which  is  most  agreeable  to 
general  usage,  and  to  that  of  Scripture  in  particular,  a  threefold  or  a  fourfold 
distribution  of  the  earth  in  such  connexions?    If  the  latter,  then  analogy  is 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  common  supposition  that  the  first  clause  is  not 
co-extensive  with  the  other,  but  contains  the  first  of  four  particulars  enume- 
rated.   Over  and  above  this  argument,  derived  from  the  usual  distinction  of 
four  points  or  quarters,  there  is  another  furnished  by  the  usage  of  the  pronoun 
these,  when  repeated  so  as  to  express  a  distributive  idea.     In  all  such  cases, 
these  and  these  means  some  and   others;    nor   is   there   probably  a  single 
instance  in  which  the  first  these  comprehends  the  whole,  while  the  others 
divide  it  into  parts.     This  would  be  just  as  foreign  from  the  Hebrew  idiom 
as  it  is  from  ours  to  say,  *'  Some  live  in  Europe,  some  in  France,  some  in 
Holland,"  when  we  mean  that  some  live  in  Holland,  some  in  France,  and 
all  in  Europe.     The  proposed  construction  would  be  altogether  natural,  if 
n?}<  were  omitted  in  the  first  clause;  but  its  presence  cannot  bo  accounted 
for,  if  that  clause  is  inclusive  of  the  other.    That  the  distributive  use  of  the 
demonstrative  is  not  confined  to  two  such  pronouns  only,  may  be  seen  from 
chap.  xliv.  5,  where  the  singular  ni;  is  twice  repeated,  just  as  the  plural  ^\}<  is 
here,  and  in  a  connection  which  admits  of  no  doubt  as  to  the  distributive 
import  of  all  three.— From  all  this,  it  seems  to  follow  that  the  verse  most 
probably  contains  the  cusfoniary  distribution  of  the  earth  or  heavens  into 
four  great  quarters,  and  that  one  of  these  is  designated  by  the  phrase /rowi 
afar.     Which  one  is  so  .lescribed,  can  only  bo  determined  by  det*^rmining 
the  true  sense  of  the  other  three.     The 'missionary-  in  China  ia  therefore 
perfectly  correct  in  setting  asidf  all  arguments  against  his  own  opinion, 
founded  on  the  supposition  that/<oMi  afar  must  mean  the  south  or  the  cast. 
The  expression  is  so  vague,  that  it  must  bo  determined  by  the  others,  aud 


Ver.  12.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  233 

cannot  therefore  be  employed  to  determine  them,  without  reasoning  in  a 
vicious  circle.  This  serves  to  shew  that  the  question,  after  all,  is  of  no  great 
exegetical  importance,  since  in  cither  case  the  same  conclusion  may  bo 
reached.  It  is  always  best,  however,  to  adhere  to  the  more  obvious  and 
usual  construction  of  a  passage,  in  the  absence  of  decisive  reasons  for  depart- 
ing from  it.  Assuming,  then,  that  four  points  are  mentioned,  and  that  the 
first  {from  afar)  can  only  be  determined  by  determining  the  others,  let  us 
now  attempt  to  do  so.  One  of  these  {ll>e  north)  is  undisputed;  for  although 
interpreters  may  dilTor  as  to  its  precise  bounds  and  extent,  its  relative  posi- 
tion is  unquestionably  fixed  by  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  word.  Another 
term,  which  most  interpreters,  and  among  the  rest  the  missionary  in  Cliina, 
seem  to  look  upon  as  equally  settled  and  beyond  dif-pute,  is  more  ambiguous 
than  they  imagine,  and  has  recently  received  a  very  difterent  explanation. 
This  is  D',  which  strictly  means  the  sea,  but  is  often  used  for  vest,  because 
on  that  side  Palestine  is  naturally  bounded  by  the  Mediten-ancan.  Hitzig, 
however,  veiT  confidently  says  that  here,  and  in  Ps.  ciii.  7,  where  it  is  put 
in  opposition  to  the  north,  DJ  means  the  south  sea,  and  as  a  term  of  geo- 
graphy, the  south.  This  is  not  mentioned  as  having  any  probability,  of  which 
it  is  entirely  destitute,  because  the  geographical  import  of  the  term  is  not  to 
be  decided  by  the  parallelism  or  the  context  in  any  given  case,  but  by  the 
predominant  usage,  which  determines  it  to  mean  the  west,  and  so  it  is 
explained  both  by  the  oldest  and  the  latest  wTiters.  Having  two  points 
thus  determined,  we  are  sure  that  the  two  which  remain  must  be  the  east 
and  south;  and  as  we  have  already  seen  that/*-o??i  ({for,  from  its  vagiieness, 
must  receive  but  cannot  give  light,  we  have  now  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  in 
which  of  these  directions  lay  the  land  of  Sinim.  The  discrepancy  of  the 
versions  as  to  these  concluding  words  is  remarkable,  and  shews  the  doubt  in 
which  the  subject  was  involved  at  a  veiT  early  period.  The  missionary  in 
China  makes  an  observation  on  this  ditVerence  which  is  less  just  than  inge- 
nious, viz.  that  no  one  of  the  authors  of  these  versions  seems  to  have  regarded 
his  own  country  as  the  Land  of  Sinim;  "  for  it  can  scarcely  be  supposed," 
says  he,  "  that  the  authors  of  a  version  living  in  the  very  country  referred 
to,  should  so  utterly  fail  of  perceiving  it,  as  to  give  the  preference  to  other 
lands."  It  is  not  easy  to  perceive,  however,  why  the  same  causes  that 
have  made  the  prophecy  obscure  to  others,  should  not  make  it  equally 
obscure  to  the  people  of  the  countrj'  meant,  especially  if  the  name  used 
was  intended  to  be  enigmatical,  as  some  interpreters  suppose.  Indeed,  by 
parity  of  reasoning,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  if  the  author  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  Version  had  supposed  it  to  be  Eg^-pt,  this  would  have  decided  the 
question.  But  although  this  observation  does  not  seem  entitled  to  any  in- 
fluence upon  the  exegesis,  the  difference  between  the  ancient  versions,  as  well 
as  the  commentators  of  all  ages,  is  still  very  remarkable.  "Without  attempt- 
ing to  enumerate  all  the  explanations,  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  give  some 
samples  of  the  different  classes.  Some  would  seem  to  be  mere  conjectural 
inferences  from  the  context.  Thus  the  Targnm  and  Vulgate  make  it  mean 
the  land  of  the  south,  or  southern  land,  assuming,  no  doubt,  ihnt/rom  afar 
must  mean  the  east,  and  that  the  south  alone  remained  to  be  supplied. 
Proccetling  on  the  contrary  h}-pothesis,  that  from  afiir  must  mean  the  south, 
the  Septuagint  puts  the  Land  of  Sinim  in  the  east,  but  gives  it  the  specific 
sense  of  Persia,  which  appears  to  be  entirely  arbitrary.  The  same  thing 
may  be  said  of  Matthew  Henry's  notion,  that  the  Land  of  Sinim  was  a 
Babylonian  province.  As  a  specimen  of  fanciful  interpretation,  may  be 
given  Adam  Clarke's   suggestion,  that   as  PP  means   a  bush,  2'?"?  may 


234  ISAIAH  XLIX.  [Ver.  12. 

mcnn  bushes,  woods,  or  a  woody  countrj',  and  be  here  used  to  denote  tbo 
region  occiipitd  by  the  descendants  of  the  ten  tribes,  perhaps  in  West 
Africa  or  North  America !  Dismissing  these  gratuitous  conjectures,  wo 
may  now  confine  ourselves  to  those  intt-rpretations  which  have  some  foun- 
dation or  appearance  of  it  cither  in  philolcgy  or  history.  Among  these 
may  be  mentioned,  first,  the  supposition  that  the  land  of  binim  is  the 
country-  of  the  Smites  spolien  of  in  Gen.  x.  17,  and  1  Cliron.  i.  15.  But 
why  should  a  Canaanitish  tribe  of  no  importance,  and  which  nowhere 
reappears  in  history,  be  here  made  to  represent  the  four  quarters  of  the 
globe  ?  This  question  becomes  still  more  difficult  to  answer  when  it  is 
added  that  the  Siiii'.cs  must  have  been  immediately  adjacent  to  the  land  of 
Israel,  and  on  the  north  side  which  is  separately  mentioned,  Grotius 
indeed  transfers  them  to  the  south  side,  but  by  sheer  mistake,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  connecting  them  with  the  wilderness  of  6'm  and  Mount  Sivaiy 
which  are  wholly  distinct  from  it.  Jerome  and  Jarchi  also  understand  the 
Land  of  Sinim  to  be  tlie  wilderness  of  Sin  or  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  but 
without  identifying  these  with  the  country  of  the  Canaanitish  Sinites,  as 
Grotius  does.  To  their  opinion  the  decisive  objection  is  not  the  one  which 
the  missionary  in  China  draws  from  the  difl'crence  of  name  and  from  the 
jtlural  form  Hnirn.  That  "  there  were  not  two  deserts  of  Sin,"  proves  no 
more  than  in  this  case  than  the  assertion  that  there  were  not  two  Hermons 
proves  against  the  application  of  the  plural  llcrmcmim  to  that  mountain  iu 
Ps.  xlii.  7.  If  a  mountain  might  be  so  called,  why  not  a  desert  ?  And  if 
Herinonim  means  llermonites,  why  may  not  Sinim  mean  Sinites.  This 
question  is  especially  appropriate,  because  the  author  gives  no  explanation 
of  the  plural  form,  upon  bis  own  hypothesis.  But  although  the  objection 
is  invalid,  the  other  which  the  author  urges  is  conclusive,  that  Sinai  and 
the  wilderness  of  Sin  were  too  near  and  too  limited  to  be  employed  in  this 
connection.  Another  explanation  founded  on  analogy  of  names  is  that  of 
Alien  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Bochart,  Vitringa,  J.  1).  !Michaelis,  and  Ewald,  that 
the  land  of  Sinim  is  the  laud  of  Egypt,  so  called  from  Si^aic,  as  j\lichaelis 
supprises,  or  from  Sin,  i.e.  Pelusium,  mentioned  under  that  name  by 
Ezekicl  (xxx.  15,  IG)  as  maintained  by  Bochart,  Vitringa,  and  Ewald. 
Here  again  it  seems  unfair  to  argue,  with  the  missionary  in  Cliina  from  the 
plural  form  of  the  Hebrew  name  ;  for  if,  as  he  observes,  it  is  merely  f  inci- 
ful  to  refer  it  to  the  old  geographical  distinction  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt,  is  it  not  more  than  fanciful  to  refer  it  to  China  where  there  is  no  such 
distinction  to  account  for  it  at  all !  If  it  Ic  said,  that  Sinim  means  the 
Chinese,  it  may  just  as  easily  be  said  that  it  means  the  Egyptians.  There 
is  no  force  therefore  in  the  argument  from  this  peculiarity  in  form,  any 
more  than  in  the  argument  which  the  missionary  in  China  himself  admits 
to  bo  here  inapplicable,  that  Eg}'pt  was  not  suflicicntly  important  to  be 
made  the  representative  of  one  great  quarter.  As  little  weight  attaches  to 
his  argument  that  this  interpretation  of  the  name  would  make  the  distribu- 
tion too  unequal ;  for  as  he  adjusts  the  limits  of  the  nortli  and  even  of  the 
land  of  Sinim  at  discretion,  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  why  the  same  thing 
might  not  bo  done  with  Sinim  if  it  did  mean  Egypt.  The  really  decifcivo 
ground,  assumed  by  the  same  writer,  is  that  Egypt,  notwilhstanJing  its 
extent  and  historical  importance,  was  too  near  at  hand  to  suit  the  context, 
which  requires  a  remote  land  to  be  here  meant,  whetlicry*rom  afar  be  taken 
as  a  general  description  or  as  a  distinct  specificalion.  Another  strong 
objection  is  that  no  cause  can  be  shewn,  from  analogy  or  otherwise,  for  the 
designation  of  this  well-known  country,  in  this  one  place  only,  by  a  name 


Yer.  12.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  235 

derived  from  one  of  its  cities,  and  that  not  of  the  first  rank.  The  only 
renaaining  explanation,  which  will  be  referred  to,  is  that  the  land  of  Siuirn  is 
China,  as  maintained  by  Manasseh  Ben  Israel,  Montaniis,  Calmet,  Gesenius, 
Winer,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Henderson,  Umbreit,  Hendewerk,  Knobel,  and 
Beck.  An  objection  to  this  interpretation  is  suggested  to  some  minds  by 
its  resemblance  to  an  etymological  conceit  founded  merely  on  an  assonance 
of  names.  It  was  probably  this  prejudice  which  caused  it  to  be  spoken  of 
with  such  contempt  by  Grotius,  Clericus,  and  Vitringa.  But  in  modern 
times,  the  current  has  completely  changed,  and  this  despised  notion  has 
been  warmly  espoused  not  only  by  the  most  distingui>;hed  writers  on  Isaiah 
(Rosemniiller  and  Ewald  being  almost  the  only  exceptions  in  the  German 
School),  but  by  the  most  eminent  comparative  philologists,  such  as  Langles, 
Lassen,  and  others,  who  have  investigated  the  question  as  one  of  historical 
and  literary  interest.  The  only  plausible  objections  which  are  still  urged 
against  it  may  be  reduced  to  two.  The  first  is  that  China  was  unknown  to 
the  Jews  at  the  date  of  the  prophecy.  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  first, 
that  no  one  who  believes  in  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  can  refuse  to 
admit  the  possibility  of  such  a  prediction,  even  if  the  fact  were  so  ;  and 
secondly,  that  in  all  probability  China  was  known  to  the  Jews  at  a  very 
early  period.  The  rashness  of  asserting  a  negative  in  such  cases  has  been 
clearly  proved  by  the  modern  discovery  of  porcelain  vessels  with  Chinese 
inscriptions  in  the  monuments  of  Thebes.  But  it  is  still  objected,  that  the 
name  Sinini  is  not  that  used  by  the  Chinese  themselves,  nor  by  other 
nations  until  long  after  the  date  of  this  prophecy,  it  having  been  derived 
from  a  family  which  did  not  ascend  the  throne  until  about  24G  years  before 
the  birth  of  Christ.  It  is  remarkable  how  readily  this  date  in  Chinese 
history  is  taken  for  granted  as  undoubtedly  correct  by  those  who  wish  to 
use  it  for  an  argument,  although  it  rests  upon  a  diirk  and  dubious  tradition 
of  a  distant  unknown  country  ;  although  the  very  text  before  us  makes  it 
doubtful ;  although  the  universal  prevalence  of  the  name  Sin,  Chin  or  Jin, 
throughout  v>-cstern  and  southern  Asia  from  time  immemorial  presupposes 
an  antiquity  still  more  remote;  and  although  Chinese  historians  themselves 
record  that  the  family  from  which  the  name  derives  its  origin,  for  ages 
before  it  ruled  the  empire  ruled  a  province  or  kingdom  on  the  western 
frontier,  whence  the  name  might  easily  have  been  extended  to  the  western 
nations.  There  are  in  fact  few  cases  of  a  name  being  more  extensively  or 
longer  prevalent  than  that  of  China,  the  very  form  which  it  exhibits  in  the 
Sanscrit,  the  mother  language  of  southern  Asia.  That  the  Chinese  them- 
selves have  never  used  it,  although  acquainted  with  it,  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose.  A  Hebrew  writer  would  of  course  use  the  name  familiar  in  the 
west  of  Asia.  This  universal  name  is  allowed  to  be  essentially  identical 
with  TP  by  the  highest  philological  authorities.  There  is  therefore  no 
conclusive  force  in  either  of  the  arguments  advanced  against  this  explana- 
tion of  the  name.  As  positive  reasons  on  the  other  side,  besides  the  main 
one  drawn  from  the  coincidence  of  name,  may  be  ment'oned  the  agreement 
of  so  many  difl'erent  and  independent  wrilers,  and  the  appropriateness 
of  the  explanation  to  the  context.  Under  the  fiist  head  ijiay  be  classed 
precisely  those  philologists  whose  peculiar  studies  best  entitle  them  to 
spenk  wiih  authority  on  such  a  point,  and  those  German  commentators 
on  Isaiah,  who  are  most  accustomed  to  difl'er  among  themselves  and  M'ilh 
the  older  writers,  especially  where  anything  is  likely  to  be  addud  by  a 
proposed  interpretation  to  the  strength  of  revelation  or  rather  to  the  clear- 
ness of  its  evidences.     Prejudice  and  interest  would  certainly  have  led  this 


230  ISAIAH  XIJX.  [Ver.  18,  14. 

class  of  writers  to  oppose  rather  than  favour  a  hypothesis  which  tends  to 
identify  the  subject  of  this  prophecy  with  Chinn,  the  f(reat  object  of  mis- 
sionary eflort  at  tlie  present  chiy. — The  olher  conlirmation  is  aflbrdcd  by  the 
suitableness  of  the  sense  thus  evolved  to  tlip  connection.  If  the  laud  of 
Sinim  meant  the  wilderness  of  Sin  or  even  Ki,'vpt,  it  would  be  difficult,  if 
not  impossible,  to  {five  a  satisfiictory  solnli(-n  of  its  sin<^ular  position  here  as 
one  of  the  <,'reat  quarters  or  divisions  of  the  world.  I5nt  if  it  mean  China, 
that  extreme  limit  of  the  eastern  world,  that  hive  of  nations,  supposed  to 
comprehend  a  third  part  of  the  human  race,  the  enigma  explains  itself. 
Even  to  us  there  would  be  nothing  unintelligible  or  absurd,  however  strange 
or  novel,  in  the  combination,  north,  west,  south,  and  China.  On  the 
whole,  then,  a  hypothesis  which  solves  nil  difficulties,  satisfies  the  claims 
of  philology  and  histoiT,  unites  the  suflrages  of  the  most  independent 
schools  {ind  parties,  fully  meets  the  requisitions  of  the  text  and  context, 
and  opens  a  glorious  field  of  expectation  and  of  efiort  to  the  church,  may 
be  salely  regarded  as  the  true  one.  For  an  interesting  view  of  the  extent 
to  which  the  promise  has  already  been  fulfilled,  and  of  the  encouragements 
to  hope  and  pray  for  its  entire  consummation,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the 
little  book  of  which  we  have  so  frequently  made  mention,  although  our 
citations  have  been  necessarily  confined  to  the  first  or  expository  chapter, 
the  remaining  four  being  occupied  with  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy. 

I'S.  Shout,  0  heavens,  mid  rejoice,  0  earth,  let  the  mountains  burst  into 
a  shout  ;  because  Jehovah  has  comforted  his  people,  and  on  his  sufferers  he 
will  have  mercy.  This  is  a  veni'  common  method  with  Isaiah  of  foretelling 
any  joyful  change  by  summoning  all  nature  to  exult  in  it  as  already  realised. 
Sec  especially  chap.  xliv.  23,  where  instead  of  the  future  iny?'  we  have 
the  imperative  "invs,  \\\  imitation  of  which  the  Keri  here  reads  iny?-!,  and 
Lowth  simply  -invs  on  the  authority  of  two  or  three  manuscripts  and  the 
ancient  versions.  There  is  of  course  no  sutlicient  reason  for  departing 
from  the  ancient  reading  still  preserved  in  the  text. — Jehovah's  consolation 
(if  his  people,  as  Gesenius  observes,  is  administered  bv  deed  as  well  as  by 
word.  (Compare  chaps,  li.  8,  12,  lii.  9,  Ixvi.  18,  Luke  ii.  25,  38.)  The 
consolation  here  meant  is  the  joyous  assemblage  of  his  people  from  all  parts 
of  the  earth,  predicted  in  the  foregoing  verse.  The  modern  writers  render 
both  the  preterite  and  future  in  the  last  clause  by  the  present  (comforts,  has 
mercy) ;  which  is  not  only  arbitrar}-  but  injurious  to  the  force  of  the  expres- 
sion, which  describes  the  consolation  as  both  past  and  future,  that  is  to  say, 
ns  already  begun  and  still  to  bo  continued  ;  unless  the  change  of  tense  bo 
designed  to  intimate,  that  what  is  vividly  described  in  the  preceding  words 
as  past,  is  really  still  future. — *Jy,  which  is  commonly  translated  in  the 
Knglish  V>\h\o.  poor,  is  here  rendered  more  coiTcctly  afflicted.  The  expres- 
sion his  afflicted,  intimates  at  once  their  previous  condition  and  their  inti- 
mate relation  to  the  Lord  as  their  protector. 

11.  A7id  (yet)  Zion  said,  Jehovah  hath  forsalcn  7ne,  and  the  Lnrd  Jiath 
furfjotten  me.  So  far  was  this  glorious  change  from  having  been  procured 
by  coiilidenco  in  God,  that  /ion  thought  herself  forsaken  and  forgotten. 
Those  who  restrict  these  prophecies  to  the  Babylonish  exile,  are  compelled 
to  understand  this  either  of  the  captive  inhabitants  of  Zion,  as  distinguished 
from  the  other  exiles,  or  of  Jerusalem  itself,  complaining  of  its  desolation, 
i'ut  the  former  distinction  is  as  arbitrary  here  as  in  chap.  xl.  i),  and  the 
long  argumentative  expostulation  which  ensues  would  be  absurd  if  addressed 
to  the  bare  walls  of  an  empty  town.  The  only  satisfactory  conclusion  is, 
that  Zion  or  Jcnisalem  is  mentioned  as  the  capital  of  Israel,  the  centre  of  the 


Yer.  15,  IG.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  237 

true  religion,  the  earthly  residenco  of  God  himself,  and  therefore  an  appro- 
priate fV'id  natural  emblem  of  his  ehosen  people  or  the  ancient  church,  just 
as  we  speak  of  the  corruptions  or  spiritual  tyranny  of  liome,  meanin;^'  not 
the  city,  but  the  great  ecclesiastical  society  or  corporation  which  it  repre- 
sents, and  of  which  it  is  the  centre. — The  translation  Zion  sayx,  although 
n(;t  ungrammatical,  is  less  appropriate  here,  because  it  represents  the 
church  as  still  complaining ;  whereas  the  original  describes  her  previous 
unbelief,  before  the  event,  or  before  the  truth  of  the  promise  had  been 
guaranteed.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  same  translators  who  make 
the  first  verb  present  give  the  other  two  their  proper  past  seuso,  a  diversitj' 
admissible  in  case  of  necessity,  but  not  without  it. 

15.  Will  a  vjoman  for'jet  her  sucklimj ,  from  havlriij  mercy,  {i.  e.  so  as  not 
to  have  mercy)  07i  the  son.  rif  her  womb?  A /.ho  (or  even)  these  will  fonjet, 
and  1  will  not  forcjet  thee.  The  constancy  of  God's  aflectiou  for  his  people  is 
expressed  by  the  strongest  possible  comparison  derived  from  human  in- 
stincts. There  is  a  climax  in  the  thought,  if  not  in  the  expression.  What 
is  indirectly  mentioned  as  impossible  in  one  clause,  is  declared  to  be  real  in 
the  other.  He  first  declares  that  he  can  no  more  forgt-t  them  than  a 
woman  can  forget  her  child,  he  then  rises  higher  and  declares  that  he  is 
still  more  mindful  of  them  than  a  mother.  The  future  verb  at  the  begin- 
ning implies,  without  expressing  a  potential  sense,  If  she  will,  she  can ;  if 
she  cannot,  then  of  course  she  will  not.  For  the  negative  use  of  the  pre- 
position IP,  see  above,  on  chap.  xliv.  18. — ltp|  might  seem  to  have  the 
general  sense  of  body,  as  we  find  it  applied  to  males  in  Job  xix.  17,  Mieah 
vi.  7. — The  precise  force  of  the  ^k  is  this  :  not  only  strangers  but  aha 
mothers ;  it  may  therefore  be  correctly  expressed  by  even.  Most  inter- 
preters make  the  iirst  part  of  the  last  clause  conditional,  and  Gesenius 
even  understands  D5  as  an  ellipsis  for  "'3  D5  aUhoxujh.  (See  chap.  i.  15.) 
But  this  is  not  so  much  a  version  as  a  paraphrase,  a  substitution  of  equi- 
valent expressions.  There  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  Prophet's  language,  which  is  not  hypothetical  but  cate- 
gorical. He  does  not  say  that  if  or  though  a  woman  could  forget  her 
child  he  would  not  follow  her  example,  but  asserts  directl}'  that  she  can 
and  will,  and  puts  this  fact  in  contrast  with  his  own  unwavering  constancy. 
The  plural  in  the  last  clause,  like  the  singular  in  the  first,  denotes  the 
whole  class.  He  does  not  say  that  all  mothers  thus  forget  their  children, 
nor  that  mothers  generally  do  so,  but  that  such  oblivion  is  not  unknown 
to  the  experience  of  mothers  as  a  class,  or  of  woman  as  an  ideal  individual. 
The  primitive  simplicity  \yiih  which  the  Hebrew  idiom  employs  the  simple 
copulative  and,  where  we  feel  the  strongest  adversative  expression  to  be 
necessary,  really  adds  to  the  force  of  the  expression,  when  it  is  once  under- 
stood and  familiar.  The  and  may  be  retained,  and  yet  the  antithesis 
expressed  in  Enghsh  by  supplying  yet :  and  (yet)  I  will  not  forget  thee. 

16.  Behold,  on  (my)  palms  I  have  graven  thee  ;  thy  iualls  (are)  be/ore 
me  continually.  Paulus  understands  the  first  clause  as  meaning,  tipon 
(thy)  hands  1  have  graven  (i.  e.  branded,  marked)  thee,  as  belonging  to  me. 
Gesenius  seems  to  object  to  this  construction  of  the  suflix  with  the  verb, 
although  precisely  similar  to  that  of  11*  ^Fip)  in  chap.  xliv.  5,  as  explained 
by  himself.  His  other  objection  is  a  better  one,  viz.  that  such  an  explana- 
tion of  the  fii'st  clause  makes  the  second  almost  unmeaning.  Doderlein 
explains  it  to  mean,  toith  {fuy)  hands  I  have  slcetched  (or  drawn)  thee,  in  allu- 
sion to  a  builder's  draught  or  plan  before  he  enter  on  the  work  of  construc- 
tion.   (Compare  Exod.  xxv.  40,  1  Chron.  xxviii.  11,  19.)    But  this  use  of 


288  ISAIAH  XLIX.  [Yer.  17,  18. 

the  preposition  ^J?  has  no  authority  in  usnge,  and  the  palms  of  the  hands  would 
not  be  mentioned  as  the  instnimcnts  in  such  a  process.  Vitringa  avoids  both 
these  objections  by  supposing  the  plan  or  picture  to  be  diu\^'n  upon  Jehovah's 
hands,  because  there  would  be  something  incongruous  in  representing  him 
as  using  paper  or  a  table.  The  Dutch  taste  of  this  excellent  interpreter  lots 
him  go  the  length  of  adding  that  the  divine  hands  are  to  be  conceived  of  as 
large,  and  allowing  ample  room  for  such  a  dehneation  as  the  one  supposed. 
The  true  sense  of  the  Prophet's  figure  seems  to  be  the  one  expressed  by 
Gcsenius  and  other  modern  writers,  who  suppose  him  to  allude,  not  to  a 
picture  or  a  plan  of  Zion,  but  her  name  imprinted  on  bis  hands  for  a  memo- 
rial, as  the  ancient  t^lave  and  soldier  wore  his  master's  name,  but  for  adifler- 
eut  purpose.  (Sec  above,  on  chap.  xliv.  5.)  The  use  of  the  word  j).i////s 
implies  a  double  inscription  and  in  an  unusual  position,  chosen  with  a  view  to 
its  being  constantly  in  sight.  The  idea  of  a  picture  was  suggested  by  the 
other  clause,  considered  as  a  parallel  expression  of  the  same  thing  as  the  fii'st. 
Thy  tuulls,  i.  c.  the  image  of  thy  walls  upon  my  hands.  But  this  is  not 
necessarily  or  certainly  the  true  relation  of  the  clauses,  which  may  be  cou- 
sidered,  not  as  parts  of  the  same  image,  but  as  two  distinct  images  of  one 
and  the  same  thing.  The  essential  idea,  I  will  not  forget  thee,  may  be  first 
expressed  by  saying,  I  will  write  thy  name  upon  my  hands,  and  then  by 
saying,  I  will  keep  thy  walls  constantly  before  me,  i.  e.  in  my  sight  and 
memory.  (Sec  Psa.  xvi.  8,  Isa.  xxxviii.  13,  and  p.  83.) — The  mention 
of  the  walls  is  no  proof  that  Zion  is  mentioned  merely  as  a  city,  since  the 
image  of  a  city  is  the  proximate  object  here  presented,  even  if  the  object 
which  symbolizes  be  the  church  or  chosen  people. 

17.  'J  Jiy  sons  hasten  (to  thee)  ;  thy  dc.troyers  and  thy  wasters  shall  go  out 
from  thee.  This  is  the  proof  that  God  had  not  forsaken  her.  Rosenmiiller 
follows  the  older  writers  in  translating  the  first  verb  as  a  future,  which  is 
wholly  arbitrary.  Gesenius  and  others  render  both  the  first  and  last  verb 
in  the  present  tense.  The  true  construction,  as  in  many  other  cases,  seems 
to  be  that  which  represent  the  process  as  begun  but  not  complete.  Already 
had  her  sons  begun  to  hasten  to  her,  and  ere  long  her  enemies  should  bo 
entirely  doparlcd.  The  Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Vulgate,  seem  to  read, 
instead  of  thy  sons  C^???),  ihy  htiiUlcrs  ("1!"^^,  which  differs  from  it  only  in  a 
single  vowel,  and  agrees  well  with  the  parallel  cxyircss'ion,  destroyers,  lilc- 
rnlly  2'>iill<^^'s  down.  Lowth  amends  the  text  accordingly  ;  but  Vitringa, 
Gesenius,  and  the  later  writers,  adhere  to  the  Masoretic  pointing,  on  account 
of  its  agreement  w  ith  the  thoughts  and  words  of  vers.  '20-22. — Bj*  wasters 
and  destroyers  Vitringa  understands  internal  enemies  ;  Gesenius,  foreign 
oppressors;  Knobel,  the  strangers  who  had  taken  possession  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  rest  of  the  country,  which,  as  ho  acknowledges,  it  hero  represents. 
The  natural  interpretation  of  the  worJs  is  that  which  understands  them  as 
containing  simply  an  eniphatic  contrast  between  friends  and  foes,  the  latter 
taking  their  departure,  and  the  former  coming  into  possession. 

18.  Lift  tip  thine  eyes  round  about  and  see,  all  of  them  are  gathered  to- 
gether, they  are  covie  to  thee.  {As)  I  live,  saith  Jehorah,  {I  swear)  that  all 
of  them  as  an  ornament  thou  shall  put  on,  and  bind  (or  gird)  them  like  the 
bride.  The  sons,  described  in  ver.  17  as  rapidly  appioaching,  ai'c  now  iu 
eight,  and  their  mother  is  invited  to  survey  them,  by  lifting  up  her  eyes 
round  about,  i.  e.  in  all  directions,  with  allusion  to  their  coming  from  the 
four  points  of  the  compass,  as  predicted  in  ver.  12.  The  common  version 
of  D^3,  all  these,  seems  to  introduce  a  new  subject.  The  strict  translation, 
all  (/ them,  refers  to  what  precedes,  and  means  all  the  sons  who  are  dc- 


Ver.  19,  20.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  239 

scribed  in  the  first  clause  of  ver.  17  as  hastening  to  her.  They  are  now 
ahcady  gathered,  i.  e.  met  together  at  the  point  to  which  they  tended  from 
so  many  distinct  quarters.  They  come  to  thee  is  an  inadequate  transhxtion. 
The  true  sense  is  that  they  are  actually  come,  i.  e.  arrived. -^In  the  second 
clause,  the  ^3  may  correspond  to  the  Greek  hi  after  verbs  of  speaking,  or 
retain  its  ordinary  sense  with  an  eUipsis  o{  I  su-car  before  it.  The  formula 
of  swearing  here  used  strictly  moans,  I  {cim)  alive  (or  living),  and  is  itself 
equivalent  to  I  swear  in  English. — The  sons  are  then  compared  to  orna- 
ments of  dress,  which  the  mother  girds  or  binds  upon  her  person.  At  the 
end  Lowth  inserts  nvjvi  in  the  text  from  chap.  Ixi.  10.  But  this  is  wholly 
unnecessary,  as  the  same  idea  is  suggested  by  the  more  concise  expressions 
of  the  common  text,  which  Lowth  is  utterly  mistaken  in  supposing  to  describe 
the  bride  as  binding  children  round  her  ;  for,  as  Dijderlein  correctly  says, 
the  point  of  comparison  between  the  type  and  antitype  is  not  children  but 
decoration.  As  a  bride  puts  on  her  ornaments,  so  thou  shalt  be  adorned 
with  thy  children. 

19.  For  thy  ruins,  and  thy  tcasies,  and  thy  land  of  desolation  (i.  e.  thy 
desolated  land) /or  noio  thou  shalt  he  too  narrow  for  the  inhahitant,  and  far 
off  shall  he  thy  devoureis  (those  who  swallow  thee  up).  The  general  mean- 
ing of  this  verse  is  evident,  although  the  construction  is  obscure.  Most 
writers  take  the  nouns  at  the  beginning  as  absolute  nominatives,  i.e.  agree- 
ing with  no  verb  expressed.  As  for  thy  luaste.^,  ttc.  thou  shalt  he  too  narrow. 
But  this  still  leaves  the  double  "'3  to  be  accounted  for,  which  Rosenmiiller 
supposes  to  depend  upon  the  verb  I  swear,  as  in  ver.  18,  and  to  signify 
tliat.  Maurer  regards  the  second  as  a  pleonastic  or  emphatic  repetition  not 
belonging  to  the  regular  constraction.  Others  give  it  the  supposititious  sense 
of  certainly  or  surely.  Beck  makes  the  first  clause  mean,  '  thy  ruins  and 
thy  wastes,  and  thy  desolations,  shall  exist  no  longer ;  but  this  requires 
another  verb  to  be  supplied  or  understood.  Perhaps  the  best  solution  is 
the  one  proposed  by  Hitzig,  who  supposes  the  construction  to  be  interrupted 
and  resumed  :  For  thy  wastes,  and  thy  ruins,  and  thy  land  of  desolation — 
(then beginning  anew,  without  completing  the  first  sentence)— for  thou  shalt 
be  too  narrow,  &c.  This  mode  of  composition,  not  unhke  what  appears  in 
the  first  draft  of  any  piece  of  writing  till  obliterated  by  correction,  is  com- 
paratively frequent  in  the  ancient  writers,  not  excepting  some  of  the  highest 
classical  models,  though  proscribed  as  inelegant  and  incori'ect  by  the  fasti- 
dious rules  of  modern  rhetoric.  This  explanation  of  the  double  ^3  makes 
it  unnecessary  to  assume  an  absolute  nominative  in  the  first  clause.  Kuobel 
carries  Hitzig's  hypothesis  too  far  when  he  assumes  an  actual  ellipsis  of 
the  same  verb  in  the  first  clause — *"?Vp  (derived  by  Ewald  from  1l>*,  by 
Gesenius  from  the  cognate  and  synonymous  1>'J)  can  only  be  second  person 
feminine.  The  common  version,  therefore,  which  refers  it  to  the  land, 
although  it  gives  substantially  the  true  sense,  is  grammatically  incorrect. 
—  For  the  inhahitant  is  literally //-on  the  inhahitarit,  the  Hebrew  preposition 
being  here  used  as  1  Kings  xix.  7. — Knobel  supposes  the  connection  of  the 
clauses  to  be  this,  that  there  would  not  be  room  even  for  the  rightful  pos- 
sessors, much  less  for  strangers  and  enemies.  For  the  application  of  the 
verb  V\^  to  enemies,  see  Lam.  ii.  2,  5. — The  devourers  of  this  verse  are  of 
course  the  destroyers  of  ver.  17. 

20.  Again  {or  still)  shall  they  say  in  thine  ears,  the  sons  of  thy  childless- 
ness, {Too)  narrow  for  me  is  the  j^lacc  ;  come  near  for  me,  and  twill  dwell 
(or  that  J  may  dwell).  The  IIV  may  simply  indicate  that  something  more 
is  to  be  said  than  had  been  said  before,  in  which  case  it  is  nearly  equiva- 


240  ISAIAII  XLIX.  [Vkk.  20. 

lent  to  over  and  above  thvi  or  moreover.  Or  it  may  have  its  true  sense 
as  ii  particle  of  time,  and  intimate  tliat  these  words  shall  be  uttered  more 
than  once,  again  and  again,  or  still,  i,  e.  continualh',  as  the  necessity 
becomes  more  urgent.  The  relative  position  of  the  verb  and  its  subject  is 
retained  in  the  translation,  as  it  causes  no  obscurity,  and  exhibits  more 
exactly  the  characteristic  form  of  the  original.  Jarchi  explains  the  sons  of 
tin/  cltiliUrs.snrss  to  mean  the  sons  of  whom  thou  wast  bereaved,  referring  to 
the  exiled  Jews.  The  later  writers  more  correctly  make  it  mean  tlic  sons 
of  tlue  a  iJiildU'ss  one,  or,  tliij  ii<Jiis,  0  childless  one.  The  apparent  ctmtra- 
diction  is  intentional,  as  appears  from  what  follows.  She  who  was  deemed 
by  others,  and  who  deemed  herself,  a  childless  mother,  hears  the  voices 
of  her  children  complaining  that  iht-y  have  not  a  sufficient  space  to  dwell 
in. — III  tlnj  ears  means  in  ihij  licuriiuj,  altliough  not  addressed  to  thee. 
(Compare  *2  Sam.  xviii.  12.)  Even  in  chap,  v.  9,  the  idea  seems  to  be 
not  merely  that  of  hearing,  but  of  overhearing.  That  the  same  thing  is 
intended  in  the  case  before  us,  may  be  gathered  from  the  masculine  ni;'4, 
which  shews  that  they  shall  sai/  does  not  mean  they  shall  say  to  thee,  but 
they  shall  say  to  one  another,  llosenmidler  explains  IV  as  an  adjective  ; 
but  usage  and  authority  determine  it  to  be  a  verb,  the  contracted  form  of 
I^V,  here  used  in  precisely  the  same  sense  as  the  future  of  the  same  verb  or 
a  cognate  root  in  the  preceding  verse.  The  idea  of  excess  [iiimi^,  too)  is 
not  expressed  as  in  that  case,  but  implied,  the  strict  translation  being  simply 
this,  the  jdace  is  narrow  for  me. — All  interpreters  agree  that  '^'i^w'^.  means 
make  room  for  me,  as  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  {rrolritsov  /moi  totov)  and  the 
Vulgate  {fac  mild  spatium ) ;  but  they  difl'er  in  explaining  how  this  sense 
may  be  extracted  from  the  Hebrew  words.  Gesenius,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  resorts  to  the  easy  supposition  of  a  word  inaccurately  used  to  express 
directly  opposite  ideas,  and  explains  the  verb,  both  here  and  in  Gen.  xix.  9, 
as  meaning  to  recede  or  move  away  from  any  one.  But  even  if  the  general 
usage  which  he  alleges  to  exist  with  respect  to  verbs  of  motion  were  more 
certain  than  it  is,  a  serious  difficulty  in  the  way  of  its  assumption  here 
would  be  presented  by  the  fact,  that  in  every  other  case  excepting  these 
two  (which  may  be  regarded  as  identical)  the  verb  means  to  come  near  or 
approach.  KosenmuUi-r  adheres  to  the  only  sense  authorised  by  usage,  and 
explains  the  phrase  to  mean,  Come  near  to  me,  that  there  may  be  more 
room.  Maurer  defends  this  explanation  of  the  word  (both  here  and  in 
Gen.  xix.  9)  against  the  objections  of  Gesenius,  but  without  replying  to  the 
main  one,  namely,  that  the  sense  thus  given  to  the  words  is  inappropriate, 
because  the  person  speaking  demands  room  not  for  others,  but  for  himself, 
which  ho  could  not  possibly  secure  by  calling  on  his  neighbour  to  come 
close  to  him.  The  whole  difficulty  seems  to  have  arisen  from  assuming 
that  Y  means  to  vie,  and  denotes  the  direction  of  the  motion,  in  opposition 
to  the  fact  that  ?  is  never  so  used  after  i-"??,  but  always  indicates  the  pur- 
pose or  design,  not  only  when  prefixed  to  the  infinitive  (as  in  Lev.  xxi.  21, 
2  Kings  iv.  27),  but  also  when  prefixed  to  npn7P,  the  only  noun  with  which 
it  is  connectrd  after  this  verl),  and  with  which  it  signifies  not  to  the  battle, 
but  for  battle,  or  to  /njht,  being  equivalent  t«>  an  infinitive  construction. 
The  only  cases,  therefore,  where  the  7  is  thus  used  (Judges  xx.  28,  2  Sam. 
X.  18,  1  ChroD.  xix.  11,  Jer.  xlvi.  8),  are  not  even  exceptions  to  the  rule, 
but  strong  corroborations  of  the  statement  that  this  particle,  when  added 
to  the  verb,  denotes  the  object  fur  which,  not  the  |)lace  to  which,  one 
ap])roache8.  This  induction  fully  justifies  the  explanation  of  the  phrase 
before  us  given  by  Jarchi,  "  approach  to  one  side  for  me  or  on  my  account" 


Ver.  21.]  ISAIAH  XLIX.  241 

C^J'JCS  7P1^  73)  3^ji?it>)f  leaving  the  precise  direction  of  the  motion  undeter- 
mined, to  express  which  the  dominant  usage  of  the  language  would  require 
the  preposition  /^.  The  sense  just  given  to  v  [for  me)  is  the  more  pro- 
bable, because  it  is  precisely  that  which  it  has  in  the  first  clause  of  this 
verse  and  the  first  clause  of  the  next. — J.  D.  Michaclis  and  Ewald  take 
nnti'X  in  its  primitive  sense  of  sitihuj,  rather  than  its  secondary  one  of 
ihrclling,  which  is  prefcn-ed  by  most  interpreters.  The  former  version 
makes  tlie  passage  still  more  graphic,  by  presenting  the  image  of  children 
contending  for  a  seat,  and  calUng  on  each  other,  in  the  presence  of  their 
mother,  to  make  room.  But  even  if  we  grant  that  there  is  nothing  un- 
worthy or  incongruous  in  this  conception,  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  here 
intended  is  precluded  by  the  use  of  the  participle  3y*r  in  the  verse  preced- 
ing, where  the  sense  of  inhnhitant  is  rendered  necessary,  by  its  close  con- 
nection with  the  nouns  land,  n-astcs,  and  ruins. 

21.  And  thou  shah  sciij  ia  thine  heart,  i.e.  to  thyself,  in  strict  agi'eement 
with  the  preceding  verse,  as  a  dialogue  not  between  the  mother  and  her 
children,  but  between  the  children  in  their  mother's  hearing.  This  is  con- 
sequently not  an  answer  to  what  goes  before,  but  an  observation  uttered, 
as  it  were,  aside  by  an  eye  and  ear  witness  of  the  straggle  and  the  clamour 
for  more  room.  With  them  the  question  is,  where  they  shall  dwell ;  with 
her  it  is,  whence  they  came. — Who  hath  produced  these  for  me?  Interpreters 
have  vexed  themselves  with  the  inquiry  whether  "l?,^  here  means  to  bear  or 
to  beget,  or,  in  other  words,  whether  she  is  asking  for  the  father  or  the  mother 
of  the  children  whom  she  sees  around  her.  Vitringa,  Lowth,  Gescnius, 
Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  who  prefer  the  former  sense,  suppose  an  allusion  to 
the  conjugal  relation  of  Jehovah  to  his  people,  and  to  the  repudiation  spoken 
of  below  in  chap.  1.  1.  But  such  allusion  seems,  in  this  connection,  far- 
fetched and  unnatural.  Kosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  choose  the  other 
sense,  which  is  really  the  strict  and  common  one,  and  here  recommended  by 
the  fact,  that  the  combination  \  "h,  is  often  applied  elsewhere  to  the  mother, 
but  never  to  the  father.  This  might  be  esteemed  conclusive,  but  for  two 
material  points  of  ditierence  between  the  cases  cited  and  the  one  before  us. 
The  first  is,  that  in  these  cases  ?  is  followed  by  the  name  of  the  father, 
whereas  here  the  speaker  is  supposed  to  be  a  woman.  The  other  is,  that  in 
all  those  cases  the  verb  itself  is  feminine,  whereas  here  it  is  masculine.  But 
these  diversities,  although  they  leave  some  room  for  doubt  and  difierence  of 
opinion,  do  not  necessarily  preclude  the  explanation  of  the  phrase  as  refer- 
ring to  the  mother.  The  masculine  form  of  the  verb  in  this  case  is  easily 
accounted  for ;  because  its  nominative  is  not,  as  in  all  the  other  cases,  a 
female  name  or  other  feminine  noun,  but  the  interrogative  pronoun,  which  is 
invariable,  and  naturally  followed  by  the  verb  in  its  original  or  simplest  form, 
not  because  that  form  includes  both  genders,  but  because  both  verb  and  pro- 
noun are  used  vaguely,  without  any  distinct  reference  to  sex  at  all.  So,  too, 
the  use  of  v  "17*  by  a  female  speaker,  although  a  violation  of  analogy,  is  one 
very  easily  explained,  because  intentional  and  even  necessary  in  the  extraor- 
dinary case  supposed.  As  in  other  cases  the  mother  is  said  to  bear  a  child 
to  the  father,  so  in  this  case  one  mother  may,  without  absurdity,  be  said  to 
bear  a  child  to  another,  because  in  either  case  the  essential  idea  is  that  of 
one  person  being  provided  with  a  child  by  another,  whether  it  be  a  husband 
by  his  wife,  or  a  childless  woman  by  a  woman  who  has  children.— -The 
truth  is,  however,  that  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  passage  are  exceedingly 

VOL.  II.  Q 


242  ISAIAH  XLIX.  [Yeb.  22. 

impaired  by  cnttinp  its  bold  figures  to  the  quick,  and  insisting  on  a  rigorous 
conformity  to  artificial  lulcs,  in&tead  of  resting  in  the  gtncial  conception, 
80  clearly  and  oflectingly  presented,  of  a  chkllcss  n^otbcr  finding  Ltrself 
Bucidcnly  surrounded  by  the  clan:our  of  a  multilude  of  cliildnn,  and  asking 
in  amazement  whence  they  came  and  who  th<y  are.  The  dist  nction  be- 
tween father  and  mother  is  one  which  would  never  occur  to  the  speaker  in 
such  a  case,  and  may  therefore  be  safely  overlooked  by  the  interpreter. — 
The  cause  of  her  astonishment  is  then  assigned.  And  I  was  Urcatcd  uvd 
larrcn.  These  almost  inccmpalible  expressions  for  a  childless  one  are  joiied 
for  the  purpose  of  expressing  that  idea  in  the  strongest  niai.ner,  and  with 
more  regard  to  the  idea  itsdt  than  to  the  rules  of  rhetorical  proprieiy. — An 
exile  and  a  hanhhcd  one.  Tlic  last  word  strictly  means  rviuoved,  i.e.  from 
home  and  from  society. — Ainl  il.eie  uho  LrotKjld  vp?  litirally  made  great, 
as  in  chap.  i.  2.  The  general  sc-nso  put  upon  "l^)  'P  is  confirmed  by  the 
analogy  of  this  phrase,  which  has  no  specific  reference  to  either  parent,  and 
is  masculine  in  form  simply  because  Ihcre  was  no  reason  why  it  should  be 
feminine. — Behold  I  tvas  Uft  alone  (or  hy  myself)  ;  these,  uhere  tare  they  f 
The  pronoun  at  the  end  is  emphatic:  where  were  they?  She  asks  how  it  is 
that  she  was  so  long  desolate  and  childless,  when  she  sees  so  many  children 
round  her  now.  Kosenmiiller  changes  the  whole  figure  by  suppe  sing  that 
long  absent  children  are  described  as  returning  to  their  mother  wilh  a  ni  racr- 
ous  oflspring.  It  is  essential  to  the  writer's  purpose  tliat  the  chiielren  .«-h(.uld 
be  all  regarded  as  the  speaker's  own ;  for  this  alone  could  aflbrd  any  adcqi'ate 
ground  lor  the  aste)lli^^ment  expressed.  Some  of  the  modern  writers  find  it 
very  hard  to  reconcile  the  language  of  this  veise  with  their  hyi^otlicsis  that 
the  Zion  of  this  passage  is  the  forsahen  city  of  Jerusalem  as  such  consiiiereil. 
The  inconveniences  of  such  a  supposition  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that 
Knobel  represents  the  Prophet  as  departing  from  his  own  chosen  image  in 
the  words  fl;i  exile  and  a  hanikhid  one,  which  are  of  course  inapplicable  to 
the  town  itself,  and  then  returning  to  it  in  the  words  1  was  hft  aloncs  which 
readily  admit  of  such  an  application.  If  such  abrupt  transitions  may  be 
assumed  at  pleasure,  how  can  anything  be  proved  to  be  the  sense  intended 
by  the  author?  The  very  fiict  that  they  are  necessary  on  a  givin  supposition, 
is  a  strong  proof  that  it  is  a  false  one,  and  ought  to  be  exchanged  for  one 
which  is  equally  consistent  with  all  the  parts  of  the  descript  on.  Such  is 
the  hypothesis  assumed  as  the  basis  of  our  exposition,  viz.  that  the  Zidii  e)f 
this  context  is  the  ancient  Church  or  chosen  people,  represented  both  in 
fiction  and  in  fact  by  the  Sanctuary  and  the  He)ly  City,  as  its  local  centre 
and  appointed  Syml  ol.  Of  this  ideal  subject,  desolation,  chi  dless-iicss, 
cajjtiviiy,  exile,  ami  the  other  varying  conditions  here  desciibcd,  may  all  bo 
predicated  with  the  same  propriety.  It'  this,  however,  be  the  true  e.xegelical 
hypothesis,  and  no  other  sccms  to  answer  all  the  requisitions  of  the  case, 
then  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  the  state  of  the  church  at  that  period  of  lier 
history,  has  no  claim  to  be  receignised  as  anything  more  than  a  paiticular 
cxeniplilication  of  the  general  promise,  that  (he  chun  h,  after  pafi>iiig  through 
extreme  depression  and  attenuati(.n,  slie)uld  be  raised  uj)  and  replenished 
like  a  childless  me)lhe'r  who  suddenly  finds  herself  surrounded  by  a  large  and 
joyeius  family  of  children. 

22.  ThuK  mith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  Behold  I  uill  lift  vp  to  the  nnticnn  ivy 
hand,  and  I  will  net  up  to  the  peoples  my  htondard  (e)r  siynal):  and  they  trill 
Iriny  thy  som  in  the  hoaom  (e)r  arms)  and  thy  dauyhtcrs  en  the  shoulders  shall 
be  carried.  The  idea  expressed  by  the  figures  ot  the  first  clause  is  that  of 
summoning  the  nations  to  perform  their  part  in  this  great  work.     Iho 


Ver.  23. j  ISAIAH  XLIX.  243 

figures  themselves  arc  the  same  as  in  chap.  xiii.  2,  viz.  the  shaking  or 
waving  of  the  hand  and  the  erection  of  a  banner,  pole,  or  other  signal,  with 
distinct  reference  perhaps  to  persons  at  a  distance  and  at  hand.  The 
figurative  promise  would  be  verified  by  any  divine  influence  securing  the 
co-operation  of  the  heathen  in  accomplishing  Jehovah's  purpose,  whatever 
mii^'ht  be  the  external  circumstances  either  of  the  call  or  their  compliance 
with  it.  The  cli'ect  of  that  compliance  is  described  in  the  last  clause,  as  the 
bringing  home  of  Zion's  sons  and  daughters,  with  all  the  tender  care  which 
is  wont  to  be  lavished  upon  infants  by  their  parents  or  their  nurses.  The 
same  image  is  again  presented  in  chap  Ix.  4,  Ixvi.  12.  Peculiar  to  this  case 
is  the  use  of  the  word  iVH,  which  seems  most  probably  to  signify  either  the 
bosom  or  the  arm,  wiien  spoken  of  in  reference  to  carrying,  and  especially 
the  carrying  of  children.  Strictly  perhaps  the  word  expresses  an  idea  inter- 
mediate between  arm  and  bosom,  or  including  both,  viz.  the  space  enclosed 
by  them  in  the  act  of  gi'asping  or  embracing.  This  likewise  seems  to  be  tho 
sense  of  the  cognate  iVH  which  occui's  in  Ps.  cxxix.  7.  The  only  other 
instance  of  the  form  iVH  is  Neh.  v.  13,  where  it  is  rendered  lap,  and  evi- 
dently signifies  some  part  of  the  dress,  perhaps  the  wide  sleeve  of  an  oriental 
garment,  which  would  connect  it  with  the  meaning  arm,  but  more  pi'obably 
tho  bosom  of  the  same.  According  to  liosenmiiller  it  denotes  any  curvature 
or  fold  of  the  body  or  the  dress,  like  the  Latin  sinus.  That  the  sense  of 
bosom  is  at  least  included  here,  may  be  inferred  from  the  analogy  of  Num. 
xi.  12,  and  Ruth  iv.  IG,  where  the  same  act  is  described  by  the  use  of  the  un- 
ambiguous term  P^H.  Gesenius's  translation,  arvi,  is  therefore  too  restricted. 
It  is  somewhat  curious  that  Hitzig,  while  he  renders  this  word  losoin,  uses 
arm  as  an  equivalent  to  ^ril,  which  is  an  arbitrary  explanation  of  the  common 
word  for  shoulder,  and  one  so  often  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  act  of 
bearing  burdens.  (See  above,  chap.  xxx.  G,  xlvi.  7 ;  Ezek.  xii.  0 ;  Num.  vii.  9.) 
Ann,  however,  is  a  favourite  word  with  Hitzig,  who  substitutes  it  frequently 
for  liand,  without  the  least  necessity  or  reason.  Those  who  restrict  the 
promise  to  the  exiled  Jews  in  Babylon  are  under  the  necessity  of  making 
tliis  a  restoration,  which  is  not  only  perfectly  gratuitous  but  inconsistent  with 
the  verse  preceding,  where  these  same  children  are  described  as  appearing 
for  the  first  time,  and  thereby  exciting  the  surprise  of  the  forsaken  mother. 
23.  And  hw<js  shall  be  thy  nursing  fathers,  and  their  queens  thy  nursing 
mothers;  face  to  (he  gnntnd  shall  tlinj  how  to  thee,  and  the  dust  of  thy  feet 
shall  they  lick:  and  thou  thall  Icnoio  that  I  am  Jehovah,  ivhose  waiters  (or 
hopers,  i.  e.  those  who  trust  in  him)  shall  not  he  ashamed  (or  disappointed). 
The  same  promise  is  repeated  in  substance  with  a  change  of  form.  Instead 
of  the  nations,  we  have  now  their  kings  and  queens;  and  instead  of  Zion's 
sons  iind  daughters,  Zion  herself.  This  last  variation,  while  it  either  per- 
plexes or  annoys  the  rhetorical  precision,  aids  the  rational  interpreter  by 
sh(  wing  that  the  figures  of  the  preceding  verse,  however  natural  and  just, 
are  not  to  be  rigidly  explained.  In  other  words,  it  shews  that  between  the 
Zion  of  this  passage  and  her  children  there  is  no  essential  difference,  and 
that  what  is  promised  to  the  one  is  promised  to  the  other.  This  identity  is 
clear  from  the  apparent  solecism  of  representing  the  bereaved  and  childless 
mother  as  herself  an  infant  in  the  arms  and  at  the  breast,  because  really  as 
much  in  need  of  sustenance  and  care  as  those  before  called  her  sons  and 
daughters,  or  rather  because  she  is  but  another  figure  for  the  same  thing. 
This  confusion  of  imagery  all  tends  to  confirm  the  supposition  that  the  Zion 
of  these  pr()|;hccies  is  not  a  city,  which  could  scarcely  be  thus  confounded 
with  its  citizens,  but  a  society  or  corporation  between  which  as  an  ideal 


244  ISAIAH  XLIX.  [Veb.  24. 

person  and  its  individual  members,  or  any  given  portion  of  them,  there  is  no 
such  well  defined  and  palpable  distinction. — )PN,  to  which  the  English 
Version  and  some  others  give  the  sense  of  nonrishers,  is  now  explained  to 
mean  a  carrier  or  hearer,  which  last  name  is  applied  by  the  English  in 
Hindostan  to  the  male  nurses  of  their  children.  Some  regard  it  as  equivalent 
to  rraihayutyii  (Gal.  iii.  21),  and  as  referring  to  a  later  period  of  childhood 
than  ripp^p,  which  is  properly  a  suckler  or  wet-nurse.  But  as  there  is 
nothing  in  the  text  to  suggest  the  idea  of  succession  in  time,  they  may  be 
regarded  as  poetical  equivalents.  Hitzig's  notion,  that  the  kings  and 
queens  are  merely  represented  as  the  ser\ile  attendants  of  Zion,  is  forbidden 
by  the  specific  offices  ascribed  to  them.  As  little  can  it  be  supposed  with 
Knobel,  that  she  is  here  to  be  conceived  of  as  a  queen  upon  her  throne, 
who  could  scarcely  be  supposed  to  need  the  tender  attentions  of  a  bearer 
and  a  wet-nurse.  The  image  is  still  that  of  a  tender  infant,  with  an  almost 
imperceptible  substitution  of  the  mother  for  her  children. — nyiS  D^£K  is  a 
kind  of  compound  adverb  like  our  English  phrases  suord- in-hand,  arm-in- 
arm, but  still  more  concise.  The  addition  of  these  words  determines  the 
meaning  of  the  preceding  verb  as  denoting  actual  prostration,  which  is  also 
clear  from  the  next  clause,  where  the  licking  of  the  dust  cannot  be  naturally 
understood  us  a  strong  expression  for  the  kissing  of  the  feet  or  of  the  earth 
in  token  of  homage,  but  is  rather  like  the  biting  of  the  dust  in  Homer,  a 
poetical  description  of  complete  and  compulsory  prostration,  not  merely 
that  of  subjects  to  their  sovereign,  but  of  vanquished  enemies  before  their 
conquerors.  (Compare  Micah  vii.  17,  Ps.  Ixxii.  9.)  In  the  last  clause 
'%'^.  is  not  a  conjunction,  meaning  that  or  for,  but  as  usual  a  relative,  to  be 
connected  with  ^1p  in  construction,  who  my  hopers,  i.  e.  whose  hopers,  those 
who  hope  in  me. 

21.  Shall  the  prey  he  taken  from  the  miijhty,  and  shall  the  captivity  of 
the  ricjhtcous  he  delivered  ?  This  verse  suggests  a  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise.  nip^D  and  '3^'  arc  combined  likewise  else- 
where to  describe  whatever  can  be  taken  in  war,  including  prisoners  and 
booty.  (Num.  xxxi.  11,  12,  27,  82.)  *3P',  though  properly  an  abstract, 
is  continually  used  as  a  collective  term  for  captives.  Its  combination  hero 
with  P^'I'V  has  perplexed  interpreters.  Houbigant,  Lowth,  Ewald,  and 
Knobel  read  y")]!  '3^*',  as  in  tlic  next  verse,  which  is  a  mere  subterfuge. 
RoscnmUller  follows  Albert  Schultens  iu  giving  to  P^'i'V  the  sense  of  rigid, 
stem,  severe ;  which  is  not  in  the  least  justified  by  Hebrew  usage.  Beck 
follows  J.  D.  Michaelis  in  explaining  it  to  mean  victorious  according  to  the 
sense  of  victory  now  commonly  put  upon  P!7>',  notwithstanding  the  objection 
of  Gesenius  that  there  is  no  authority  in  usage  for  the  application  of  this 
term  to  the  successes  of  the  wicked,  without  regard  to  its  original  import. 
Sj-mmaohus,  Jarchi,  Aben  Ezra,  and  Hitzig,  understand  the  phrase  to 
mean  the  ritjhtcous  captives,  i.  e.  the  exiled  Jews.  Gesenius,  Manrer,  and 
Umbreit,  the  prey  or  plunder  of  the  righteous,  t.  e.  taken  from  the  righteous. 
But  this  explanation  of  *3^  is  harsh,  and  the  parallelism,  as  well  as  the 
analogy  of  ver.  2'),  re(]uires  that  P'^V  should  be  referred  to  the  suliject, 
not  the  object  of  the  action.  The  English  Version  makes  it  agree  directly 
with  '3P',  in  the  sense  of  latvftd  captives,  i.e.  one  who  has  been  lawfully 
enslaved,  or  one  who  deserves  to  be  a  captive.  The  simplest  and  most 
obvious  construction  of  the  words  is  that  which  makes  them  mean  the 
captives  of  a  righteous  conqueror.  The  argument  may  then  be  stated 
thus  :  Shall  the  ca[)tives  even  of  a  righteous  conqueror  bo  freed  in  such  a 
case  ?     How  much  more  the  captives  of  an  unjust  oppressor! 


Ver.  25,  20.  j  ISAIAH  L.  ^  2i5 

25.  For  thus  snitli  JeJiovah,  aho  (or  even)  the  captivity  (or  captives)  of 
the  mijhly  shall  he  taken,  and  the  prcij  of  the  terrible  shall  be  delivered,  and 
with  thy  strivers  luill  I  strive,  and  thy  sons  will  I  save.  There  is  uo  need 
of  giving  to  the  '?  at  the  beginning  the  factitious  sense  of  yes,  no,  nay, 
more,  verily,  or  the  like.  Its  proper  meaning  may  be  retained  by  supply- 
ing in  thought  an  affirmative  answer  to  the  foregoing  question.  Shall  the 
captives  of  the  righteous  be  delivered  ?  Yes,  and  more ;  for  thus  saith 
Jehovah,  not  only  this  but  also  the  captives  of  the  tyrant  or  oppressor. 
There  is  a  ver^'  material  ditference  between  supplying  what  is  not  expressed 
and  changing  the  meaning  of  what  is.  The  latter  expedient  is  never 
admissible  ;  the  former  is  often  necessary.  The  logical  connection  between 
this  verse  and  the  one  before  it  has  been  already  stated.  Its  general  sense 
is  clear,  as  a  solemn  declaration  that  the  power  of  the  captor  can  oppose 
no  real  obstacle  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  deliverance.  The  same 
idea  is  expressed  in  the  last  clause  in  more  general  and  literal  terms. 

26.  And  I  will  make  thy  opp)ressors  eat  their  {own)  Jtesh,  and  as  iiith 
neio  wine,  with  their  blood  shall  t/iey  be  drunken  ;  and  all  flesh  shall  know, 
that  I  Jehovah  am  thy  Saviour,  and  (that)  thy  Redeemer  is  the  Mighty  One 
of  Jacob.  The  first  clause  is  commonly  explained  as  a  strong  metaphorical 
description  of  intestine  wars  and  mutual  destruction,  similar  to  that  in 
Zech.  xi.  9.  In  this  case,  however,  as  in  chap.  ix.  19,  the  image  is  perhaps 
rather  that  of  a  person  devouring  his  oati  flesh  in  impotent  and  desperate 
rage.  The  Targum  gratuitously  changes  the  sense  by  interpreting  the  first 
clause  to  mean,  "  I  will  give  their  flesh  for  food  to  the  birds  of  heaven,"  or, 
as  Jarchi  has  it,  "to  the  beasts  of  the  field."  The  last  clause  winds  up 
this  part  of  the  prophecy  by  the  usual  return  to  the  great  theme  of  the  whole 
book,  the  relation  of  Jehovah  to  his  people,  as  their  Saviour,  liedeemer, 
and  Protector,  self-existent,  eternal,  and  almighty  in  himself,  yet  conde- 
scending to  be  called  the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob.  The  last  words  may  be 
construed  as  a  single  proposition,  "  That  I  am  Jehovah  thy  Saviour  and  thy 
Redeemer  the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob."  This  will  be  found  upon  comparison, 
however,  to  express  much  less  than  the  construction  above  given,  which 
asserts  not  only  that  the  speaker  is  Jehovah,  &c.,  but  that  the  Being  who 
possesses  these  attributes  is  the  peculiar  covenanted  God  of  Israel  or  Jacob, 
For  the  ditierent  epithets  of  this  clause,  see  above,  chaps,  i.  21,  sh.  14. 
xliii.  3.  For  a  similar  statement  of  the  pm-pose  of  God's  providential 
dealings  with  his  people,  sec  chap.  xlv.  3,  and  ver.  23  of  this  same  chapter. 


CHAPTEE    L. 

This  chapter  contains  no  entirely  new  element,  but  a  fresh  view  of 
several  which  have  already  been  repeatedly  exhibited.  The  first  of  these 
is  the  great  truth,  that  the  sufi'eriugs  of  God's  people  are  the  necessary  fruit 
of  their  own  sins,  ver.  1.  The  second  is  the  power  of  Jehovah  to  accom- 
plish their  deliverance,  vers,  2,  3,  The  third  is  the  Servant  of  Jehovah, 
his  mission,  his  qualifications  for  it,  his  endurance  of  reproach  and  opposi- 
tion on  account  of  it,  vers.  4-9.  The  fourth  is  the  way  of  salvation  and 
the  certain  doom  of  those  who  neglect  it,  vers.  10,  11. 

This  perpetual  recurrence  of  the  same  gi-eat  themes  in  various  combina- 
tions makes  the  mere  division  of  the  chapters  a  comparatively  miimportant 
matter,  although  some  writers  seem  to  attach  great  importance  to  the 
separation  of  the  first  three  verses  from  what  follows,  and  their  intimate 


24G  ISAIAH  L.  [Ter.  1. 

conncct'on  with  what  goes  before.  It  should  bo  ever  borne  in  mind  that 
these  divisions  are  conventional  and  modern,  and  that  in  this  part  of  Isaiah, 
more  especially,  they  might  have  been  omitted  altogether,  without  any 
serious  mconvenicncc  to  the  reader  or  ii.terpreter.  A  much  greater  evil 
than  the  Wiint  of  these  divisions  is  the  habit  of  ascribing  to  them  undue 
author^t}'  and  sufTcring  the  exposition  to  be  governed  by  them,  as  if  each 
were  a  sepnrate  prediction  or  discourse,  instead  of  being  arbitrary  though 
convenient  breaks  in  a  continued  compositi(in,  not  materially  diflering  from 
the  paragraphs  now  used  in  every  modern  book.  The  re-arrrangement  of 
the  chapters  in  the  present  case  would  answer  no  good  purpose,  since  the 
first  three  verses  are  not  UKjrc  closely  connected  with  the  tnd  of  the  pro- 
ceding  chapter  than  what  fullows  is  with  its  beginning.  The  true  course  is 
to  make  use  of  the  common  divisions  as  convenient  pauses,  but  to  read  and 
expound  the  text  as  one  continuous  discourse. 

1,  Thna  saitit  Jehmah.  This  prefatory  formula  has  no  doubt  had  some 
influence  on  the  division  of  the  chapters.  It  does  not,  however,  always 
indicate  the  intn.ductiou  of  a  new  subject,  as  may  le  seen  by  a  comparison 
of  chap,  xlviii.  17  with  chap.  xlix.  1. — ]Vhere  is  or  irhat  is/  'N  by  itself 
is  the  interrogative  adverb  icherc-  When  joined  with  HT,  it  seems  to  be 
equivalent  to  our  inten-ogative  tvhal  or  tihicli,  but  always  with  reference  to 
place,  and  for  the  most  part  with  a  noun  of  place  following.  The  most 
frequent  combination  is,  nitich  uai//  This  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  it  is 
used  in  the  general  sense  of  what,  as  explained  by  Ewald,  or  in  the  more 
specific  one  of  uliat  jilace,  i.e.  where,  preferred  by  Gesenius  and  most  other 
writers.  This  is  a  question  of  but  little  moment  as  to  the  general  meaning 
of  the  sentence;  since  the  question  "  where  is  it?"  as  we  shall  see  below, 
is  here  substantiully  equivalent  to  "what  is  it?" — The  bill  <if  diro) cement, 
literally,  writing  of  excision  or  repudiation,  translated  in  the  Septuagiut 
^i^Klov  to"/  d-oaraaioj,  which  form  is  retained  in  tlio  New  Testament  (Matt, 
xix.  7,  Mark  x.  4),  though  sometimes  al-ridgcd  (Matt.  v.  31).  The  Hebrew 
phrase  denotes  the  legal  instrument  by  which  the  Mosaic  law  allowed  a 
husband  to  repudiate  his  wife  (iKut.  xxiv.  1-3). — Of  your  vwlher.  The 
persons  addressed  are  the  individual  members  of  the  church  or  nation  ;  their 
mother  is  the  cliurch  or  nation  itself.  These  are  of  course  distinguished 
from  each  other  only  by  a  poetical  figure. —  Whom  I  hare  sent  (or  put) 
aicai/.  These  words  admit  of  a  twofold  construction.  According  to  the 
common  Hebrew  idiom,  the  relative  pronoun  when  the  object  of  a  verb,  is 
followed  by  the  personal  pronoun  which  it  represents.  According  to  this 
idiom,  irhom  I  have  sent  her  means  nothing  more  than  trhom  I  hare  sent, 
except  that  it  more  distinctly  indicates  the  gender  of  the  object.  This  con- 
struction is  recommended  here,  not  only  by  its  strict  conformity  to  general 
usage,  but  by  its  recurrence  in  the  very  next  clause,  where  v  D?nft>  '^"i^O  "i^ 
is  agreed  on  all  hands  to  mean  to  uhom  I  mhl  you.  But  as  the  verb  to  send 
governs  two  accusatives  in  Hebrew,  the  relative  may  take  the  place  of  one 
of  them,  denoting  the  end  for  which,  or  the  means  by  which,  as  it  actually 
does  in  chap.  Iv.  11,  2  Sam.  xi.  22,  1  Kings  xiv.  (»,  anil  in  the  case  before 
us,  according  to  the  judgment  of  most  modern  writers,  who  explain  the 
words  to  mean  uhrrenith  I  liavc  sent  her  au'iiy. — The  use  of  the  disjunc- 
tive or  in  Hebrew  is  comparatively  rare,  and  consequently  moix'  significant 
when  it  docs  occur,  as  in  this  case,  where  it  seems  designed  to  intimate  that 
the  two  figures  of  the  clause  are  to  bo  taken  separately,  not  together,  that  is 
to  say,  that  the  punishment  of  the  people  is  not  compared  to  the  rcpudiat  on 
of  a  wife  and  the  sale  of  her  children  in  the  same  ideal  case,  but  represented 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAH  L.  247 

by  the  two  distinct  emblems  of  a  wife  divorced  and  children  sold.  Or  n-hich 
of  1111/  rreilitois  (is  it)  to  n-hoin  I  have  sold  you?  We  have  here  an  allusion 
to  another  provision  of  the  Mosaic  law,  which  allows  debtors  to  be  sold  in 
payment  of  th'jir  debts  (Matt,  xviii.  25),  and  even  children  by  their  parents 
(Exod.  xxi.  7).  The  answer  follows  in  the  other  clause. — Bcliold,  for 
your  iniquities  ye  have  been  sold.  The  reflexive  meaning,  ye  have  sold 
yourselves,  is  frequently  expressed  by  this  form  of  the  verb,  but  not  inva- 
riably nor  even  commonly;  it  is  not,  therefore,  neccs-ary  here,  nor  even 
favoured  by  the  parallelism,  as  the  corresponding  term  is  a  simple  passive  of 
a  different  form,  i\nd  one  which  cannot,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  denote 
a  reflexive  or  reciprocal  action. — And  for  your  transr/ressions.  Vitiinga's 
suggestion,  that  one  of  the  parallel  terms  may  signify  civil,  and  the  other 
religious  offences,  is  entirely  gratuitous.  Your  mother  has  been  sent  (or  jnit) 
avyiy.  The  repetition  of  your,  where  her  iransyressions  might  have  been 
expected,  only  serves  to  shew  more  clearly  the  real  identity  of  those  who 
are  formally  distinguished  as  the  mother  and  the  children. — The  interroga- 
tion in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  has  been  variously  understood.  Jerome 
nnd  the  Rabbins  explain  it  as  an  indirect  but  absolute  negation,  implying 
that  she  had  not  been  divorced  at  all,  but  had  wilfully  forsaken  her  husband, 
and,  as  Abarbenel  says,  gone  out  from  his  house  of  herself,  or  of  her  own 
accord  {r>"Z^  ]))  Of>.i'  h))i>:)}y  f}'^).  This,  though  a  good  sense  in  itself,  is  not 
an  obvious  one,  or  that  which  the  words  would  readily  suggest.  If  this  had 
been  the  writer's  meaning,  and  he  had  chosen  to  express  it  in  the  form  of 
an  interrogation,  he  would  more  probably  have  said.  Have  I  given  your 
mother  a  bill  of  divorcement?  Have  I  sold  you  to  my  creditors?  Besides, 
the  explanation  of  this  clause  as  an  absolute  negation  is  at  variance  with  the 
positive  statement  in  (he  last  clause,  that  she  had  been  put  away,  as  well  as 
with  the  parallel  assertion,  that  they  had  been  sold,  which  last,  indeed,  may 
be  explained  away  by  adopting  the  reflexive  sense,  but  no  such  explanation 
is  admissible  in  "the  other  case.  In  order  to  avoid  this  objection,  some 
explain  the  cause  not  as  an  absolute  negat'on,  but  a  qualified  one.  Thus 
Vitringa  understands  it  to  mean  that  she  had  been  put  away,  and  they  sold, 
not  by  him,  i.e.  not  by  the  husband  and  the  father,  but  by  judicial  process, 
which  he  undertakes  to  reconcile  with  ancient  Jewish  usage  by  the  authority 
of  Buxtorf  and  Selden.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  qualification  whit-h 
is  needed  to  reconcile  the  clauses  is  in  this  interpretation  wholly  supplied 
by  the  imagination  of  the  reader  or  interpreter,  without  the  least  foundation 
in  the  text  or  context.  The  same  remark  applies,  though  in  a  less  de- 
gree, to  the  modification  of  this  negative  hypothesis  by  Grotius,^  who 
supposes  it  to  be  denied  that  she  had  been  divorced  without  suflicient 
reason,  and  by  Gesenius,  who  explanis  it  as  denying  that  she  had  received 
a  bill  or  writing  of  the  ordinary  kind.  The  difficulty  common  to  all  theso 
hypotheses  is,  that  the  qualification  assumed  is  altogether  arbitrarv-,  and 
dependent  on  the  fancy  or  discretion  of  the  reader. — This  is  equally  true 
of  some  interpretations  which  assume  that  she  had  been  put  away,  for 
example  that  of  Ilitzig,  who  ingeniously  supposes  that  the  bill  of  divorce- 
ment is  called  for  that  it  may  be  cancelled,  and  the  creditor  that  he  may  bo 
paid.  Th(!  most  emphatic  and  significant  portion  of  the  sentence  is  in  this 
case  not  expressed  at  all,  and  never  would  occur  to  any  reader  but  the  one 
whose  inc;cnuity  invented  it. — The  simplest  and  most  obvious  interpretation 
of  the  first  clause  is  the  one  suggested  by  the  second,  which  evidently  stands 
related  to  it  as  an  answer  to  the  question  which  occasions  it.  In  the  present 
case,  the  answer  is  wholly  unambiguous,  viz.  that  they  were  sold  for  their 


248  ISAIAH  L.  [Vkr.  2. 

sins,  and  that  she  was  put  away  for  their  transgressions.  The  question 
naturally  corresponding  to  this  answer  is  the  question,  why  the  mother  was 
divorced,  and  why  the  sons  were  sold  ?  Supposing  this  to  be  the  substance 
of  the  first  clause,  its  form  is  ver}'  easily  accounted  for.  Where  is  your 
mother's  hill  of  divurcemattf  produce  it,  that  we  may  see  the  cause  of  her 
repudiation.  Where  is  the  creditor  to  xchoin  I  sold  you.'  let  him  ajipear, 
and  tell  us  what  was  the  occasion  of  your  being  sold.  Gesenius's  objection, 
that  the  Jewish  bills  of  divorcement  did  not  state  the  cause,  is  trivial,  even 
if  the  fact  alleged  be  admitted  to  be  true,  for  which  there  is  no  sufficient 
reason.  The  objection,  that  God  could  not  have  a  creditor,  from  which 
some  have  argued  that  the  first  clause  must  be  negatively  understood,  has 
no  more  force  than  the  objection  that  he  could  not  be  a  husband  or  a 
wTiter,  both  involving  an  egregious  misconception  or  an  utter  disregard  of 
the  figurative  nature  of  the  passage.  If  Jehovah's  casting  ofl"  his  people 
might  be  likened  to  a  Jewish  husband's  repudiation  of  his  wife,  then  the 
same  thing  might  be  likened  to  a  Jewish  debtor's  sale  of  himself  or  his 
children  to  his  creditors,  without  any  greater  incongruity  or  contradiction 
in  the  one  case  than  the  other.  The  general  idea  of  rejection  is  twice 
clothed  in  a  figurative  dress,  first  by  emblems  borrowed  from  the  law  and 
custom  of  divorce,  and  then  by  emblems  borrowed  from  the  law  and  custom 
of  imprisonment  for  debt. — The  restriction  of  this  passage  to  the  Baby- 
lonish exile  is  entirely  arbitrari-.  If  it  admits  of  any  special  application,  it 
is  rather  to  the  repudiation  of  the  Jewish  people  at  the  advent. 

2.  H  /ij/  did  I  come,  and  there  is  no  viati  /  (nhy)  did  I  call,  ami  there 
xras  110  one  ansiverimj  f  The  idiom  of  occidental  languages  would  here 
admit,  if  not  require,  a  more  involved  and  hypothetical  construction. 
*'  Why,  when  I  came,  was  there  no  one  (to  receive  me),  and,  when  I 
called,  no  one  to  answer  me  ?  '  (See  above,  chap.  v.  4,  vol.  i.  p.  129.) 
The  Targum  explains  this  of  God's  coming  and  calling  by  the  prophets, 
and  the  modern  Geimans  adopt  the  same  interpretation.  Vitringa  and 
many  other  writers  understand  it  of  Christ's  coming  in  the  flesh.  Both 
explanations  are  erroneous  if  exclusive,  both  correct  as  specific  applica- 
tions of  a  general  expression.  In  themselves,  the  words  imply  nothing 
more  than  that  God  had  come  near  to  the  people,  by  his  word  and  provi- 
dence, but  without  any  suitable  response  on  their  part.  The  clause  is 
explanatory  of  their  being  sold  and  ]iut  away,  as  represented  in  the  fore 
going  verse.  The  general  truth  which  it  teaches  is,  that  God  has  never, 
and  will  never  put  away  his  people  even  for  a  time,  without  preceding  dis- 
obedience and  alienation  upon  their  part.  Particular  examples  of  this 
general  truth  are  furnished  by  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  by  every  season 
of  distress  and  persecution. — The  other  clause  precludes  the  vindication  of 
their  unbelief  and  disobedience  on  the  ground  that  thoy  had  not  sufficient 
reason  to  obey  his  commands,  and  rely  upon  his  promises.  Such  doubts 
are  rendered  impious  and  foolish  by  the  proofs  of  his  almighty  power. 
This  power  is  first  asserted  indirectly  by  a  question  implying  the  strongest 
negation  :  Is  my  litaid  shortened,  shortened,  from  redemi'tion  .'  aiul  is  tin  re 
trith  me  no  pourr  (/'.  e.  have  I  no  power)  to  deliver?  Shortness  of  hand  «>r 
arm  is  a  common  oriental  figure  for  defect  of  power,  especially  in  reference 
to  some  particular  elVect,  which  is  thus  represented  as  beyond  the  reach. 
(See  chap.  lix.  1  ;  Num.  xi.  28  ;  cf.  chap,  xxxvii.  17.)  According  to 
Gesenius,  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  was  so  called,  not  in  reference  to  any, 
corporeal  peculiarity,  but  as  being  possessed  of  extraordinary'  power.  The 
emphatic  repetition  of  the  Ucbrew  verb  may,  as  usual,   be  variously  ex- 


\er.  3,  4.]  ISALIII  L.  '219 

pressed  in  trauslatioQ  by  the  iutrocluction  of  intensive  phrases,  such  as 
idloijelhcr  or  at  all,  or  by  a  simple  repetition  of  the  verb  in  Enghsh. 
From  redoiiption,  i.  e.  so  as  not  to  redeem  or  deliver  from  distress.  (See 
above,  on  chap.  xlix.  15.) — IJehuUl,  by  vi;/  rebuke  (a  term  often  used  to 
express  God's  control  over  the  elements)  1  trill  drtj  up  the  sea.  I  can 
make  a  complete  change  in  the  face  of  nature.  Most  of  the  modern  writers 
use  the  present  form,  1  dry  up  the  sea.  But  this,  as  expressing  an  habitual 
act,  tails  to  give  the  sense  of  the  original,  which  is  not  a  description  of 
what  he  usually  does,  but  a  declaration  of  what  he  can  do,  and  what  he 
will  do  in  the  present  instance  if  it  should  be  necessary.  Hence  the  best 
translation  of  the  verb  is  the  exact  one  which  adheres  to  the  strict  sense 
of  the  future.  As  in  many  other  cases,  this  general  expression  may  involve 
a  particular  allusion,  namely,  to  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  at  the  exodus 
from  Egypt.  But  to  make  this  the  direct  and  main  sense  of  the  words,  is 
equally  at  variance  with  good  taste  and  the  context.  It  is  only  upon  this 
erroneous  supposition  that  Vitriuga  could  imagine  himself  bound  to  apply 
what  follows  (7  wdl  make  streams  a  uilderness)  to  the  passage  of  the  Jordan, 
and  to  justify  the  plural  designation  of  that  river  by  appealing  to  its 
magnitude,  historical  importance,  &c.  It  is  really  a  poetical  reiteration 
of  what  goes  before,  extending  what  was  there  said  of  the  sea  to  streams 
and  other  waters.  The  remaining  vrords  of  this  verse  are  intended  merely 
to  complete  the  picture,  by  subjoining  to  the  cause  its  natural  cftect. — Let 
their  fish  slink  fur  want  of  water  and  die  of  thirst.  The  abbreviated  form 
nbri  seems  to  shew  that  the  writer  here  passes  from  the  tone  of  prediction 
or  general  description  to  that  of  actual  command.  It  may,  however,  be  a 
poetic  variation  of  the  ordinary  future  form,  in  which  case  the  sense  will 
be,  their  fish  shall  die,  kc. ;  or  the  abbreviated  form  may  indicate  an 
indirect  or  oblique  construction,  so  that  their  fish  shall  stink,  Sec,  which 
last  explanation  is  the  one  preferred  by  the  latest  writers.  The  pronoun 
their  refers  to  sea  and  rirers,  or  to  the  last  alone,  which  is  masculine, 
though  feminine  in  form. — For  t^'X^n  Lowth  reads  t^*3^n  [tlieir  jish  is  dried 
vp),  on  the  authority  of  one  manuscript  confirmed  by  the  Septuagint 
version  {^rtsav^/iaovrai).  The  collective  use  of  the  word  fish  is  the  same  in 
Hebrew  and  in  English.  For  the  true  sense  of  ^^<5,  see  above,  chap.  v.  0, 
vol.  i.  p.  131-2. 

3.  The  description  of  Jehovah's  power,  as  displayed  in  his  control  of 
the  elements,  is  still  continued.  /  uill  clothe  the  heavens  in  blackness. 
The  Het>rew  noun,  according  to  its  etymolog}',  denotes  not  merely  a  black 
colour,  but  such  a  colour  used  as  a  sign  of  mourning.  Thus  understood, 
it  con-esponds  exactly  to  the  fohowing  words,  where  the  customary  mourn- 
ing dress  of  ancient  times  is  mentioned.  And  sackcloth  I  will  j)lace  (or 
make)  their  covering.  The  reference  of  this  verse  to  the  plague  of  dark- 
ness in  the  land  of  Egypt  is  admissible  only  in  the  sense  explained  above 
with  respect  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  namely,  as  a  particular  allusion 
comprehended  in  a  geuex'al  description.  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  some  later 
writers  understand  it  as  referring  to  the  usual  phenomena  of  storms,  or 
even  to  the  obscuration  of  the  sky  by  clouds ;  but  it  is  inconceivable  that 
such  an  everyday  occurrence  should  be  coupled  with  the  drying  up  of  seas 
and  rivers,  as  a  proof  of  God's  power  over  nature  and  the  elements.  The 
sense  required  by  the  connection  is  that  of  an  extraordinary  darkness  (such 
as  that  of  an  eclipse),  or  even  an  extinction  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  as  in 
chap.  xiii.  10.     (See  vol.  i.  p.  275.) 

4.  The  Lord  Jehovah  ludh  (jiven  to  me.     As  Jehovah  is  the  speaker  in 


250  ISAIAH  L.  [Ver.  4. 

the  foregoing  vorae,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  and  many  others,  regard  this  cluuso 
as  a  proof  that  these  are  the  words  of  the  M-.-ssiah,  who,  in  virtue  of  his 
twofold  nature,  might  speak  in  the  person  of  Jehovah,  and  yet  say,  Jvho- 
vail  hath  f/ivcn  to  mc.  The  llibbins  and  th«  Germans  explain  them  as  the 
words  of  Isaiah  himself,  spe.iking  either  in  his  own  name  or  in  that  of  the 
prophets  as  a  class.  But  some  of  the  things  wh'ch  follow  are  inapplicable 
to  such  a  subject,  an  objection  not  relieved  by  assuming  with  Grotius  that 
Isaiah  is  here  a  type  of  Christ.  The  true  hypothesis  is  still  the  same 
which  we  have  f  )nnd  ourselves  constra'ned  to  assume  in  all  like  cases 
throughout  the  foregoing  chapters,  mmely,  that  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  as 
ho  calls  himself  in  ver.  10  below,  is  the  Messiah  and  his  people,  as  a  com- 
plex porson,  or  the  church  in  indissoluble  union  with  its  Head,  asserting  his 
divine  commission  and  authority  to  act  as  the  great  teacher  and  enlightener 
of  the  world.     For  this  end  God  had  given  him  a  ready  tongue  or  speech. 

Most  interpreters  adopt  a  different  vt-r.-ion  of  Dalits?  in  the  first  and  Inst 
clause,  giving  it  at  first  the  sense  of  Icurncd,  and  afterwards  that  of  lenrvers. 
These  two  ideas,  it  is  true,  are  near  akin,  and  may  be  blended  in  the  Hebrew 
word  as  the}'  arc  in  the  English  scholar,  which  is  used  both  for  a  learner  and 
a  learned  person.  It  is  best,  however,  for  that  very  reason,  to  retain  the 
same  word  in  translation,  as  is  done  by  Hitzig,  who  translates  it  discipJcs, 
Ewald,  apostlei,  and  Henderson,  (hose  tuho  are  taiujht.     Grotius  agrees  with 

the  Scptuagint  in  making  DHIG?  an  abstract  noun  meaning  tJistniclive — 
yX-Laeav  rraid-la;,  nn  instructive  tongue.  Gcsenius  considers  it  equivalent 
to  taxi'jht  or  pradtsed  tongue.  In  every  other  case  the  word  is  a  concrete, 
meaning  persons  taught,  disciples.  (See  above,  (hap.  viii.  10,  and  below, 
chap.  liv.  18.)  From  this  expression  Hitzig  and  Knobel  strangely  infer 
that  Isa'ah  was  an  uneducated  prophet  like  Amos  (vii.  14),  which  would 
be  a  very  forced  conclusion,  even  if  Isaiah  were  the  subject  of  the  passage. 
As  applied  to  Christ,  it  is  descriptive  of  that  power  of  conviction  and  per- 
suasion which  is  frequently  ascribed  in  the  New  Testament  to  his  oral 
teachings.  As  his  representative  and  instrument,  the  church  has  always 
had  a  measure  of  the  same  gift  enabling  her  to  execute  her  high  vocation. 
— To  know  (that  I  might  know)  to  hilp  or  succour  the  ucari/  {uith)  a  nurd. 
This  explanation  of  the  verb  ri-iy,  which  occurs  only  here,  is  that  given  by 
Aquila  {;jr:or,r^'/iGui),  Jerome  {sastcularc),  Gcsenius  [stdrkcn),  and  several  of 
the  later  writers.  Near  jikin  to  this,  and  founded  on  another  Arabic 
analogy,  is  the  sense  of  re/rcshintj,  which  is  expressed  by  Riickert,  Ewald, 
and  Umbreit.  J.  D.  Michaelis  explains  it  to  mean  charge,  and  applies  it 
to  Iho  endless  variety  of  our  Saviour's  instructions.  Puulus  and  Hitzig 
make  the  p  radical,  and  identify  the  word  with  the  Arabic  \j^  to  speak ; 

but  tills,  according  to  Knobel,  would  be  applicable  only  to  frivolous,  un- 
meaning spocch.  Most  of  the  older  writers  understand  H^y  ns  a  denomina- 
tive verb  froni  ny,  tinv,  meaning  to  speak  seasonably.  This  explanation 
R^ems  to  bo  implied  in  the  Sepluagint  paraphrase  (roO  yviva/  r,y/xa  biT  s/tj/V 
X'/yov).  But  according  to  the  probable  ctvmology  of  ny.  the  verb  derived 
from  it  would  assume  another  form,  and  the  construction  with  two  objects, 
as  Gesenius  observes,  would  bo  harsh  ;  whereas  it  is  not  uncommon  with 
verbs  of  supporting  or  sustaining.  (See  Gen.  xlvii.  18  ;  1  Kings  xviii.  4.) 
The  Chaldce  paraphrase,  '  That  I  might  know  how  to  teach  wisdom  to  the 
righteous  panting  for  the  words  of  the  law,'  or,  as  Jarchi  and  Kimchi  have 
it,  '  thirsting  for  the  words  of  God,'  appears  to  bo  conjectural. — lie  xoill 
Ufoken,  in  the  morning,  in  the  momimj,  he  will  waken  for  me  Uie  car,  i.  e. 


Ver.  5,  6.]  ISAIAH  L.  251 

he  will  waken  my  ear,  rouse  my  attention,  and  open  my  mind  to  the  recep- 
tion of  the  truth,  (See  chap,  xlviii.  8  ;  1  Sam.  ix.  15,  xx.  2  ;  Ps.  xh.  7.) 
Tho  present  tense  {he  tcakcnelh)  asserts  a  claim  to  constant  inspiration  ; 
the  future  expresses  a  confident  belief  that  God  will  assist  and  inspire  him. 
— The  accents  require  in  the  morning  in  tlw.  morning  to  be  read  together, 
as  in  chap,  xxviii.  19,  where  it  is  an  intensive  repetition,  meaning  crcrg 
nioriiinr/.  It  might  otherwise  bo  thought  more  natural  to  read  the  sentence 
thus,  he  ivill  itaken  in  the  morning,  in  the  morning  he  will  ivoken,  a  twofold 
expression  of  the  same  idea,  viz.  that  he  will  do  so  early.  In  either  case 
the  object  of  both  verbs  is  the  same  ;  the  introduction  of  the  pronoun  me 
after  the  first  in  the  English  Version  being  needless  and  hurtful  to  the 
sentence.  The  last  words  of  the  verse  declare  the  end  or  purpose  of  this 
Wakening,  to  hear  [i.  e.  that  I  may  hear)  like  the  cliscij'lcs  or  the  taught,  i.  e. 
that  I  may  give  attention  as  a  learner  listens  to  his  teacher.  Luzzatto 
understands  this  verse  as  an  assertion  of  the  pious  and  believing  Jews,  that 
God  enables  them  to  hear  and  speak  as  if  they  were  all  prophets,  which,  if 
correctly  understood  and  duly  limited,  appears  to  be  the  true  sense  as  ex- 
plained above. 

5.  The  Lord  Jehovah  opened  for  me  the  car,  and  I  rcsisttd  not.  The 
common  version,  /  was  not  irhellious,  seems  to  convert  the  description  of 
an  act  into  thut  of  a  habit. — I  did  not  draiu  hack,  or  refuse  the  ottice,  on 
account  of  the  hardships  by  which  I  foresaw  that  it  would  be  accompanied. 
There  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  conduct  of  Moses  (iv.  13)  in  declining  the 
dangerous  but  honourable  work  to  which  the  Lord  had  called  him.  (Com- 
pare Jcr.  i.  G,  xvii.  16.)  Henderson's  reflection  on  this  sentence  is,  '  How 
ditlerent  the  conduct  of  the  Mcss:ah  from  that  of  Jonah  !' 

G.  Mg  hack  I  gave  to  {those)  smiting.  We  may  understand  by  gave  cither 
yielded  unresistingly  or  offered  voluntarily.  (Compare  Mat.  v.  39.)  The 
punishment  of  scourging  was  a  common  one,  and  is  particularly  mentioned 
in  tho  history  of  our  Lord's  maltreatment. — And  mg  cheeks  to  those  plucking 
(the  beard  or  hair).  It  is  well  observed  by  Hitzig,  that  the  contest  here 
requires  something  more  than  the  playful  or  even  the  contemptuous  pulhng 
ol'  the  beard,  the  vellere  barbam  of  Horace  and  Persius,  to  which  preceding 
writers  had  referred.  A  better  parallel  is  Neh,  xiii.  25,  where  the  Tirshatha 
is  said  to  have  contended  with  the  Jews,  and  curbed  them,  and  smote  them, 
and  p'ucked  off  their  hair.  (Compare  Ezra  ix.  3.)  This  particular  species 
of  abuse  is  not  recorded  in  the  history  of  our  Saviour's  sulierings,  but  some 
suppose  it  to  be  comprehended  in  the  general  term  buffeting. — Mgfacc  1 
did  not  hide  from  shame  and  spitting.  The  plural  Torm  HiO?^  may  be  cither 
an  intensive  or  emphatic  expression  for  extreme  shame  or  abundant  shame, 
or  a  term  comprehending  various  shameful  acts,  such  as  smiting  on  the 
face,  spitting  in  it,  and  the  like.  In  the  phrase  I  did  not  hide  unj  face  there 
may  be  an  allusion  to  the  common  figure  of  confusion  covering  the  face 
(Jer.  li.  51),  in  reference  no  doubt  to  the  natural  expression  of  this  feeling 
by  a  blush,  or  in  extreme  cases  by  a  livid  paleness  overspreading  tho 
features.  Some  have  imagined  that  by  spitting  nothing  more  is  meant  than 
spitting  on  the  ground  in  one's  presence,  which,  according  to  the  oriental 
usages  and  feelings,  is  a  strong  expression  of  abhorrence  and  contempt. 
But,  as  Lowlh  well  says,  if  spitting  in  a  person's  presence  was  such  an  in- 
dignity, how  much  more  spitting  in  his  face  ;  and  the  whole  connection 
shews  that  the  reference  is  not  to  any  mitigated  form  of  insult  but  to  its 
extreme.  That  this  part  of  the  description  was  ful61Ied  in  the  experience 
of  our  Saviour,  is  expressly  recorded,  Mat.  xxvi.  G7,  xxvii.  30.      That  it 


252  ISAIAH  L.  [Veb.  7. 

was  literally  verified  in  that  of  Isaiah,  is  not  only  without  proof  but  in  the 
last  (le;^'roe  improLable,  much  more  the  supposition  that  it  was  a  common 
or  habitual  treatment  of  the  prophets  as  a  class.  As  to  Isaiah  himself,  it 
is  worthy  of  remark  that  a  learned  and  ingenious  Kabbin  of  our  own  day 
(Sjmiutl  Luzzatto)  argut-s  against  this  application  of  the  Prophet's  language, 
first,  because  ho  was  not  a  prophet  of  evil,  and  could  not  therefore  be  an 
object  of  the  populiir  hatred  ;  secondly,  because  his  predictions  were  not 
addressed  to  his  contemporaries  but  to  future  apes  ;  thirdly,  because  even 
on  the  supposition  that  he  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  ho 
must  have  written  in  the  name  and  person  of  an  older  prophet,  and  could 
not  therefore  have  exposed  himself  to  any  ))ublic  insult.  From  this  impos- 
Eibility  of  proving  any  literal  coincidence  between  the  prophetic  description 
and  the  personal  experience  of  the  Prophet  himself,  when  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  palpable  coincidences  which  have  been  already  pointed  out  in 
the  experience  of  Jesus  Christ,  many  interpreters  infer  that  it  was  meant 
to  be  a  literal  prediction  of  his  sufl'erings.  But  even  Yitringa  has  observed 
that  if  it  were  so,  its  fulfilment,  or  the  record  of  it,  would  be  imperfect, 
since  the  points  of  agreement  are  not  fully  commensurate  with  those  of  the 
description.  (See  for  example  what  has  been  already  said  with  respect  to 
the  plucking  of  the  beard  or  hair.)  The  most  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
dilliculty  is  the  one  suggested  by  Yitringa  himself,  who  regards  the  pro- 
phecy as  metaphorical,  and  as  denoting  cruel  and  contemptuous  treatment 
in  general,  and  supposes  the  literal  coincidences,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
to  have  been  providentially  secured,  not  merely  to  convict  the  Jews,  as 
Grotius  says,  but  also  to  identify  to  others  the  great  subject  of  the  pro- 
phecy. But  if  the  prophecy  itself  bo  metaphorical,  it  may  apply  to  other 
fcubjects,  less  completely  and  remarkably  but  no  less  really,  not  to  Isaiah, 
it  is  true,  from  whom  its  terms,  even  figuratively  understood,  are  foreign, 
but  to  the  church  or  people  of  God,  the  body  of  Christ,  which,  like  its 
head,  has  ever  been  an  object  of  contempt  with  those  who  did  not  under- 
stand its  character  or  recognise  its  claims.  What  is  literally  true  of  the 
Head,  is  metaphorically  true  of  the  Body — "  I  gave  my  back  to  the  smiters 
and  my  cheeks  to  the  pluckers,  my  face  I  did  not  hide  from  shame  and 
spitting." 

7.  And  the  Lord  Jihntah  wiU  help  me,  or  afford  lielp  to  me.  The  ad- 
versative particle,  which  most  tninulators  have  found  necessary  here  to 
shew  the  true  connection,  is  not  required  by  the  Hebrew  idiom.  (See 
above,  on  chap.  xl.  8.) — Therefore  I  am  not  confounded  by  the  persecution 
and  contempt  described  in  the  foregoing  verses.  The  common  version,  / 
shall  not  be  confounded,  is  not  only  arbitraiy  but  injurious  to  the  sense, 
which  is  not  that  God's  protection  will  save  him  from  future  shame,  but 
that  the  hope  of  it  saves  him  even  now.  The  words  strictly  mean,  /  have 
not  been  confoinuhd,  which  implies,  of  course,  that  ho  is  not  so  now. — 
Therefore  1  hare  set  vuj  face  as  a  flint.  This  is  a  common  description  of 
firmness  and  detimiination  as  expressed  in  the  countenance.  It  is  equally 
applicable  to  a  wicked  impudence  (Jer.  v.  8,  Zech.  vii.  12),  and  a  holy 
resolution  (Kzek.  iii.  H,  {)).  The  same  thing  is  expressed  by  Jeremiali 
under  different  but  kindred  figures.  (Jer.  i.  17,  18,  xv.  20.)  It  is  pro- 
bal  le,  as  J.  H.  Michaelis  suggests,  that  Luke  alludes  to  these  passages, 
when  ho  says  that  our  Lord  Uedfastly  i-et  his  face  (ro  crgoauTo*  ai/roS 
iarr,^i^i)  to  <jo  to  Jerusalem.  (Luke  ix.  ^A.)  The  strong  and  expressive 
Englibh  phrase,  set  my  face,  is  in  all  respects  belter  than  those  which  later 
verbions  have  substituted  for  it,  such  as  place  (Barnes),  present  (Noyes), 


Ver.  8.]  ISAIAH  L.  253 

itc. — And  I  know  that  I  shall  not  he  ashaincd.     The  substitution  of  because 
for  and  is  an  unnecessary  deviation  from  the  Hebrew  idiom. 

8.  Near  (u)  my  jmtifier  (or  the  one  justifjinj^  me).  P^'j'Vr'  is  strictly  a 
forensic  term  meaning  to  acquit  or  pronounce  innocent,  in  case  of  accusa- 
tion, and  to  ri;^ht  or  do  justice  to,  in  case  of  civil  controversy.  The  use  of 
this  word,  and  of  several  correlative  expressions,  may  be  clearly  learned 
from  Dcut.  xxv.  1.  The  justifier  is  of  course  Jehovah.  His  being  near  is 
not  intended  to  denote  the  proximity  of  an  event  still  future,  but  io  describe 
his  intervention  as  constantly  within  reach  and  available.  It  is  not  the 
justification  which  is  said  to  be  near  to  the  time  of  speaking,  but  the  justifier, 
who  is  said  to  be  near  the  speaker  himself.  The  justification  of  his  servant 
is  the  full  vindication  of  his  claims  to  divine  authority  and  inspii-atiou.  At 
the  same  time  there  is  a  designed  coincidence  between  the  terms  of  predic- 
tion, and  the  issue  of  our  Saviour's  trial;  but  the  prophecy  is  not  to  be 
restricted  to  this  object.  The  general  meaning  of  the  word  is,  all  this 
reproach  is  undeserved,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter.  Since  God  himself  has 
undertaken  his  defence,  the  accuser's  case  is  hopeless.  He  therefore  asks 
triumphantly,  Wlw  will  contend  luith  me  ?  The  Hebi-ew  verb  denotes 
specifically  litigation,  or  forensic  strife.  Rom.  viii.  33,  3-1,  is  an  obvious 
imitation  of  this  passage  as  to  form.  But  even  Vitringa.  and  the  wannest 
advocates  for  letting  the  New  Testament  explain  the  Old,  are  forced  to 
acknowledge  that  in  this  case  Paul  merely  borrows  his  expressions  from  the 
Prophet,  and  applies  them  to  a  different  object.  In  any  other  case  this 
class  of  writers  would  no  doubt  have  insisted  that  the  justifier  must  be 
Christ,  and  the  justified  his  people  ;  but  from  this  they  are  precluded  by 
their  own  assumption,  that  the  Messiah  is  the  speaker.  Both  hypotheses, 
so  far  as  they  have  any  just  foundation,  must  be  reconciled  by  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  ideal  speaker  is  the  Body  and  the  Head  in  union.  In  the 
sense  here  intended,  Christ  is  justified  by  the  Father,  and  at  the  sometime 
justifies  his  people. —  We  will  stand  (or  let  us  stand)  together,  at  the  bar, 
before  the  judgment-seat,  a  frequent  application  of  the  Hebrew  verb.  (See 
Num.  xxvii.  2,  Deut.  xix.  17,  1  Kings  iii.  16.)  This  is  an  indirect  defiance 
or  ironical  challenge ;  as  if  he  had  said,  If  any  will  still  venture  to  accuse 
me,  let  us  stand  up  together. — The  same  thing  is  then  expressed  in  other 
words,  the  form  of  interrogation  and  proposal  being  still  retained.  Who  is 
my  adversary  ?  This  is  more  literally  rendered  in  the  margin  of  the  English 
'&ih\e,  ivho  is  the  master  of  my  cause  ?  But  even  this  fails  to  convey  the 
precise  sense  of  the  original,  and  may  be  even  said  to  reverse  it,  for  the 
master  of  my  cause  seems  to  imply  ascendancy  or  better  right,  and  is  not 
therefore  applicable  to  a  vanquished  adversary  whose  case  was  just  before 
described  as  hopeless.  The  truth  is,  that  the  pronoun  my  belongs  not  to 
the  last  word  merely,  but  to  the  whole  complex  phrase,  and  /J^3  simply 
means  "possessor,"  i.e.  one  to  whom  a  given  thing  belongs.  Thus  a 
cause-master  (elsewhere  called  Q*"???  7^3  (Exod.  xxiv.  14),  means  one  who 
has  a  cause  or  law-suit,  a  party-Htigant,  and  my  cause-nwster  means  one 
who  has  a  controversy  with  me,  my  opponent  or  adversary ;  so  that  the 
common  version  really  conveys  the  meaning  better  than  what  seems  to  be 
the  more  exact  translation  of  the  margin.  In  sense,  the  question  is  pre- 
cisely parallel  and  tantamount  to  the  one  before  it,  \oho  will  contend  tvith 
inef — Let  him  draw  near  to  me,  confront  me,  or  engage  in  conflict  with 
me. — The  forensic  figures  of  this  verse  and  some  of  its  expressions,  have 


254  ISAIAH  L  [Ver.  9,  10. 

repentedlv  occurred  in  the  course  of  the  preceding  chapters.     (See  chnps. 
xli.  1,  21^  xliii.  9,  20;  xlv.  20;  xlvii.  14,  IG.) 

9.  Behold,  the  Lord  Jehovah  xudl  hilp  mc  ;  who  (is)  he  {thai)  will  con- 
(hmu  me  f  The  help  specifically  meant  is  that  afforded  by  an  advocate  or 
judge  to  an  injured  party.  J?V7'^  is  the  technical  antithesis  to  p'^V'"?,  used 
in  ver.  8.  Both  verbs,  with  their  copiatc  adjectives,  occur  in  Deut.  xxv.  1. 
— The  potential  menning  {can  conf/cmti)  is  included  in  the  future  {will 
condimii),  though  not  directly,  much  less  exclusively,  expressed  by  it. — 
The  latt'  clause  adds  to  the  assurance  of  his  own  safety  that  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  his  enemies.  All  they  (or  all  of  than,  his  adversaries,  not  expressly 
mentioned  but  referred  to  in  the  questions  which  precede)  like  the  ijnrmeiit 
shall  tjivtr  old  (or  Le  uoin  out),  i.e.  like  the  paimtnt  which  is  woni  out  or 
decays.  The  vwlh  shall  devour  them.  Gesenius  condemns  the  relative  con- 
struction, nhich  the  moth  devours  (referring  to  "I.??'!'  as  a  collective),  because 
inadmissible  in  the  parallel  passage,  chap.  li.  8.  He  nevertheless  adopts 
it  in  his  own  German  Version  {nie  cin  Geuaud  das  die  Motte  verzehit). 
The  real  objection  to  it  is,  that  it  is  needless,  and  rests  upon  a  frivolous 
rhetorical  punctilio.  By  a  perfectly  natural  and  common  transition,  the 
writer  passes  from  comparison  to  metaphor,  and  having  first  transformed 
them  into  garments,  says  directly  that  the  moth  shall  devour  them,  rot  as 
men,  in  which  light  he  no  longer  views  them,  but  as  old  clothes.  This  is 
a  favourite  comparison  in  {scripture  to  express  a  gradual  but  sure  decay. 
(Compare  chap.  li.  8,  jind  Hosca  v.  12.)  In  Job  xiii.  28,  Ps.  xxxix.  12,  it 
Eccms  to  denote  the  effect  of  fining  sickness.  Not  contented  vilh  th  s 
obvious  and  natural  interiretation  of  the  figure,  Vitiiiiga  supposes  an 
allusion  to  the  oflieinl  dresses  of  their  chief  men,  which  is  not  a  whit  more 
reasonable  than  the  notion  of  Cocceius  which  he  sets  aside  as  far-fetched, 
that  the  prophets,  priests,  and  lulers  of  the  old  econcm}'  were  but  a  gar- 
ment, under  which  the  Messiah  was  concealed  until  bis  advent,  and  of 
■which  he  stripped  himself  {ur:ir.l\jc6iii^cq,  Col.  ii.  15)  at  death.  The 
necessity  of  thus  explaining  why  the  enemies  of  Christ  and  his  people  are 
compared  to  (jaivieiits  is  precluded  by  the  obvious  consideration,  that  the 
main  point  of  the  simile  is  the  slow  consuming  process  of  the  moth,  and 
that  the  clothes  are  added  simply  as  the  substances  in  which  it  is  most 
frequently  observed. 

10.  117/0  avHVfj  y&u  is  a  fearer  of  Jclovoh,  heorlcnung  to  the  voice  o/hia 
servant,  who  wall.ith  in  darhvcfs  and  (heic  is  ro  light  to  him  f  Lit  him 
trust  in  the  name  of  Jihovah,  and  lean  vpon  his  God.  The  same  sense  may 
be  attained  ly  closing  the  interrogation  at  his  servant,  and  reading  the 
remainder  of  the  tentence  thus  :  uhoso  xcalhelh  in  darkness  and  hath  no 
light,  let  him  tivst,  &c.  Ihis  construction,  which  is  given  by  De  AVetlo, 
has  the  advantage  of  adhering  more  closely  to  the  Masoretic  intcrpunclion. 
A  different  turn  is  given  to  the  sentence  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  terminntes 
the  question  at  Jf/ioifl/i,  and  makes  all  the  rest  an  answer  to  it.  "Who 
among  you  is  a  fearer  of  Jehovah  ?  lie  that  hcaikeneth  to  the  voice  of 
h'B  ser\ant,  that  walketh  in  darkness  where  he  has  no  dawn,  yet  trusts  iu 
Jehovah  and  relies  upon  his  God."  To  this  ingenious  and  orig  nal  con- 
struction it  may  be  objected,  first,  that  it  divides  the  st  ntence  into  two  very 
unequal  parts,  directly  contrary  to  Hebrew  usage  ;  and  in  the  next  place, 
that  it  makes  the  ])artici]»lts,  present  and  future,  all  j  re cisely  synonymous 
and  equally  descriptive  of  the  pious  mati's  hnbitiuil  conduct.  All  the  con- 
ttmctions  which  have  now  been  mentioned  give  the  'P  its  usual  and  pnq^er 
sense,  as  an  interrogative  pronoun  correspond ijig  to  the  English  uhu/   But 


YiiR.  10.]  ISAIAH  L.  255- 

Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  Gcsonius,  and  Maurer,  choose  to  give  it  an  inde- 
finite sense,  uhoso  or  whoever,  and  exclude  the  interrogation  alto"ethcr ; 
the  snmo  superficial  lexicography  which  confounds  nSti  ^vith  '^1^'^,  because 
the   Hebrew   employed  one  form   of  expression,   where  wc  should   more 
naturally  use  the  other.     Because  uliocver  might  be  used,  and  would  be 
used  more  readily  by  us  in  such  a  case  thnn  uho,  it  docs  not  follow  that 
the  former  is  the  true  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  in  that  case.     All  tho 
instances  alleged  by  Geseuius  in  his  Lexicon  as  proofs  that  ""P  is  some- 
limes  an  indefinite,  admit,  with  one  exception,  of  the  usual  interrogative 
tninslation,  not  only  without  damage  to  the  sense,  but  with  a  more  exact 
adherence  to  the  genius  of  the  language,  which  delights  in  short  detached 
proposition":,  where  an  occidental  writer  would  prefer  a  series  of  dependent 
members  forming  one  complex  period.     Thus  in  Judges  vii.  3,  the  occi- 
dental idiom  would  be,  ichnscver  is  fearful  avd  afraid,  let  him  return  •  but 
the  genuine  Hebrew  form  is,  Who  is  fcaifid  and  afraid?  let  him  return. 
Tho  same  thing  is  true  of  Exod.  xxiv.  14,  Prov.  ix.  4,  Eccles.  v.  9,  Isa.  liv. 
15,  in  all  which  cases  there  is  nothing  whatever  to  forbid  the  application  of 
the  general  rule,  that  the  usual  and  proper  sense  must  bo  retained  unless 
there  be  some  reason  for  departing  from  it ;  and  such  a  reason  cannot  bo 
afforded  by  the  bare  possibility  of  a  different  construction.     The  single 
exception  above  mentioned,  and  the  only  case  of  the  indefinite  use  of  ^P 
alleged  by  Ewald  in  his  Grammar,  is  2  Sam.  xviii.  12,  which  is  too  anoma- 
lous and  doubtful  to  prove  anything,  and  which  may  be  as  properly  alle"ed 
on  one   side  as  the   other.     The  occasional  combination  of  ""O  with  "iv.'Nt 
instead  of  favouring  the  views  here  combated,  aflbrds  an  argument  against 
them,  as  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  words,  both  in  Exod.  xxxii.  33,  and 
2  Sam.  XX.  11,  is,  who  {it)  he  that?     All  that  need  be  added  upon  this 
point  is,  that  the  latest  German  writers  have  returned  to  the  old  and  true 
translation,  uho? — Obedience  to  the  word  is  implied  in  hearing  it,  but  not 
expressed.  — Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  two  ancient  versions,  reads  V^^'\ 
for  y^ti',  Jet  him  hearken,  which  is  copied  by  Gesenius,  perhaps  through 
inadvertence,  as  he  says  nothing  of  a  change  of  text,  and  no  such  sense  can 
possilily  be  put  upon  the  participle.     This  mistake  or  oversight,  if  such  it 
be,  although  corrected  by  the  later  Germans,  has  been  carcfub'y  retained  by 
Noyes  (/<'<  him  iwaiken  to  ihc  voice  of  his  servant).      Henderson,  on  the 
other  hand,  retains  the  common  interrogative  translation,  but  explains  the 
''P,  ill  his  note,  as   "  a  substitute  for  the  relative  "X'^,  he  who,"  which  is 
scarcely  intelligible. — Darkness   is  here  used  as  a  natural   and   common 
figure  for  distress.     (See  above,  chap.  viii.  20,  ix.   1.)     J.   D.  Michaelis 
gives  to  njj  the  specific  sense  of  dawn,  break  of  day,  or  morning  light,  like 
"in^  in  chap.   viii.   20,  and  xlvii.   11.     Vitringa  understands  it   to  mean 
splendour  or  a  great  degree  of  light,  and  thus  avoids  the  absolute  negation 
of  all  spiritual  light,  which  would  not  suit  his  exegetical  hypothesis.     Tho 
great  majority  of  writers,  late  and  early,  are  agreed  in  making  it  a  poetical 
equivalent  or  synonyme  of  "UN. — The  futures  in  the  last  clause  may,  with 
equal  prnpiicty,  if  not  stdl  greater,  be  translated,  he  ivill  trust  and  lean  ; 
the  exhortation  being  then  implied  but  not  expressed. — The  preterite  '^^H 
may  1  e  intended  to  suggest  that  the  darkness  spoken  of  is  not  a  transient  state, 
but  one  which  has  already  long  continued.    Trusting  in  the  ?707?i<'  of  Jehovah 
is  not  simply  trusting 'n  himself,  or  in  tho  independent  self-f  xistcnce  which 
that  nr^mein  plits,  but  in  his  manifested  attributes,  attested  by  experience, 
which  seems  to  be  the  full  sense  of  the  word  name,  ns  applied  to  God  in 
The  Old  Tcstalmcut.— Two  exegetical  questions,  in  relation  to  this  verse, 


25G  IS  ALU  I  L.  [Vbr.  11. 

have  much  diviiled  und  perplcxod  inicrprckrs.     The  first  has  respect  to 
the  person  spcakiug  and  the  ohjects  of  address  ;  the  other  to  the  servant  of 
Jehovah.     These  questions,  from  their  close  connection  and  their  mutual 
dependence,  may  he  most  conveniently  discussed  to<,'cther.     There  would 
be  no  ahsurdit}',   nor  even   inconsistency,  in  supposing  that   his  sen-ant 
means  the  Prophet,  or  the  prophets  indefinitely,  as  the  organs  of  the  divine 
communications.     This  may  be  granted  even  by  those  who  give  the  title  a 
very  dilVerent  meaning  elsewhere,  as  it  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed  that 
so  indefinite  a  name,  and  one  of  such  perpetual  occurrence,  is  invariably 
used  in  its  most  pregnant  and  emphatic  sense.     It  is  certain,  on  the  con- 
trary,  that  it  is  frequently  applied  to  the  prophets  and  to  other  public 
functionaries  of  the  old  economy.     There  is  therefore  no  absurdity  in 
Calvin's  explanation  of  the  phrase  as  here  descriptive  of  God's  ministers  or 
messengers  in  general,  to  whom  those  that  fear  him  are  required  to  submit. 
The  verse  may  then  be  connected  immediately  with  what  precedes,  as  the 
words  of  the  same  speaker,     lint  while  all  this  is  unquestionably  true,  it 
cannot   be  denied  that  the    frequency  and  prominence  with  which  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  is  exhibited  in  these  Later  Pro]ihecies,  as  one  distin- 
guished from  the   ordinary  miuistn*,  makes   it  more  natural  to  make  that 
application  of  the  words  in  this  case,  if  it  be  admissible.     The  only  diffi- 
culty lies  in  thf  mention  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  the  third   person, 
while  the  preceding  context  is  to  be  considered  as  his  own  words.     (See 
above,  on  chap.  xlix.  1 .)  This  objection  may  be  easily  removed,  if  we  assume, 
as  Ewald  docs,  that  the  words  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  are  concluded  in 
the  preceding  verse,  and  that  in  the  one  before  us  the  Prophet  goes  on  to 
speak  in  his  own  person.     This  assumption,  although  not  demonstrably 
correct,  ngi-ees  well  with  the  dramatic  form  of  the  context  both  before  and 
after,  and  the  frequent  changes  of  person,  without  any  explicit  intimation, 
which  even  the  most  rigorous  interpreters  are  under  the  necessity  of  grant- 
ing.    On  this  hypothesis,  which  seems  to  be  approved  by  the  latest  as  well 
ns  bv  the  older  writers,  the  Senant  of  Jehovah  here  referred  to  is  the 
same  ideal  person  who  appears  at  the  beginning  of  the  forty-ninth  and 
forty-second  chapters,  namely,  the  Messiah  and   his  People  as  his  typo 
and  representative,  to  whoso  instructions  in  the  name  of  God  the  world 
must  hearken  if  it  would  be  saved.     The  questit)n,  which  part  of  the  com- 
plex person  hero  predominates,  must  bo  determined  by  observing  what  is 
said  of  him.     If  the  exhortation  of  the  verse  were  naturally  applicable  to 
the  world  at  large,  as  distinguished  from  the  chosen  people,  then  the  latter 
might  be  readily  supposed  to  be  included  under  the  description  of  the  Ser- 
vant of  Jehovah.     lUit  as  the  terras  employed  appear  to  be  descriptive  of 
the   people   of  Jehovah,  or  of  some   considerable  class  among  them,  the 
most  probable  conclusion  seems  to  be,  that  by  the  Servant  of  Jihovah  we 
are  here  to  understand   the   Head   as  distinguished  from  the  ]5o(ly,  with  a 
secondary  reference,  perhaps,  to  his  official  representatives,  so  far  ns  he 
employs  them  in  conununicating  even  with  the  Hody  itself.     There  is  no 
need  of  pointing  out   the  arbitrary  nature  of  Vitringu's  theory-,  that  this 
verse  relates  to  a  piriod  extending  from  the  a<lvent  to  the  n-igu  of  Triijan 
or  Hadrian  ;  a  chronological  hypothesis  in  which  the  terminM  a  ^ko  is  only 
less  gratuitous  and  groundless  than  the  terminu-'<  cul  qucm. 

11.  Lo,  all  of  you  kimlliixj  fur,  gtnlin;/  sparks  (or  fiery  darts),  go  in  Uie 
liijht  of  your  firf,  nnd  in  the  spnrks  ye  have  kimU^-d.  From  my  hand  is  thit 
to  you  ;  in  puin  (or  at  the  place  of  torment)  shall  y  lie  doxon.  The  con- 
struction of  the  first   clause   is  ambiguous,  as  kindlintj  and   i/irdinij,  with 


Ver.  11.]  ISAIAH  L.  257 

their  adjuncts,  may  be  either  the  predicates  or  subjects  of  the  proposition. 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hitzig,  and  Hendewerk,  prefer  the  hxtter  supposition,  and 
explaia  the  clause  to  mean,  all  of  you  are  kindling  fire,  &c.  This  being 
inconsistent  with  the  character  described  in  the  preceding  vorse,  Hitzig 
supposes  that  the  speaker  here  acknowledges  his  error,  or  admits  that  the 
fearers  of  Jehovah,  whose  existence  he  had  hypotheticallj  stated,  were  in  fact 
not  to  he  found.  As  if  he  had  said,  "  But  you  are  not  such,  all  of  you  are 
kindling,"  &c.  The  harshness  of  this  interpretation,  or  perhaps  other 
reasons,  have  induced  the  great  majority  of  writers  to  adopt  the  other 
syntax,  and  explain  the  participles  as  the  subject  of  the  proposition,  or  a 
description  of  the  object  of  address,  all  of  you  kindling,  i.  e.  all  of  you  who 
kindle.  Thus  understood,  the  clause  implies  that  the  speaker  is  here  turn- 
ing from  one  class  of  hearers  to  another,  from  the  Gentiles  to  the  Jews,  or 
from  the  unbelieving  portion  of  the  latter  to  the  pious,  or  still  more  gene- 
rally from  the  corresponding  classes  of  mankind  at  large,  without  either 
national  or  local  limitation.  The  wider  sense  agrees  best  with  the  com- 
prehensive terms  of  the  passage,  whatever  specific  applications  may  be  vir- 
tually comprehended  in  it  or  legitimately  inferable  from  it.  This  is  of 
course  too  vague  an  hypothesis  to  satisf}'  the  judgment  or  the  feelings  of 
the  excellent  Vitringa,  by  whom  it  is  repeatedly  afiirmed  that  all  who  admit 
the  application  of  the  prophecy  to  Christ,  must  grant  that  this  verse  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  Pharisaic  party  of  the  Jews  ;  a  consequence,  the  logical 
necessity  of  which  is  very  far  from  being  evident. — There  is  also  a  diflerence 
of  opinion  with  respect  to  the  import  of  the  figures.  That  of  kindling 
fire  is  explained  by  Junius  and  Tremellius  as  denoting  the  invention  of 
doctrines  not  revealed  in  Scripture,  while  the  sparks  represent  the  Phari- 
saical traditions.  The  rabbinical  interpreters  suppose  the  fire  to  denote 
the  wrath  of  God,  in  proof  of  which  they  are  able  to  allege  not  onl)- 
the  general  usage  of  the  emblem  in  that  sense,  but  the  specific  combina- 
tion of  this  very  noun  and  verb  in  Deut.  xxxii.  22,  Jer.  xv.  14,  xvii.  4. 
In  all  these  cases  the  meaning  of  the  figure  is  determined  by  the  addi- 
tion of  the  words  in  my  anger,  or  as  some  choose  absurdly  to  render  it, 
in  my  nose.  (See  above,  on  chap,  xlviii.  9.)  This  is  certainly  a  strong 
analogical  argument  in  favour  of  the  rabbinical  interpretation,  and  Vit- 
ringa's  method  of  evading  it  is  not  a  little  curious.  He  rests  his  proof 
on  the  omission  of  this  very  phrase  ("'SX?),  in  default  of  which  he  says, 
nemo  hie  necessario  cogilat  de  ira  Dei.  The  same  rule,  if  applied  with 
equal  rigour  to  his  own  interpretations,  would  exclude  a  very  large  pro- 
portion of  his  favourite  conclusions.  Even  in  this  case,  he  has  no  diaKslnxov, 
as  he  calls  it,  to  compel  the  adoption  of  his  own  idea,  that  the  fire  kindled 
is  the  fire  of  sedition  and  intestine  strife,  still  less  to  prove  that  the  parti- 
cular sedition  and  intestine  conflict  meant  is  that  which  raged  among  the 
Jews  before  the  final  downfall  of  Jerusalem.  Lowth  seems  unwilling  to 
reject  this  explanation,  though  his  betttr  taste  inclines  him  to  prefer  the 
wider  sense  of  human  devices  and  worldly  policy,  exclusive  of  faith  and 
trust  in  God.  This  is  substantially  the  explanation  of  the  words  now  com- 
monly adopted,  though  particular  interpreters  diverge  from  one  another  in 
details,  according  to  the  sense  which  they  attach  to  the  parallel  metaphor, 
J^lp^t  *^f^'?-  The  rabbinical  tradition  gives  the  noun  the  sense  of  sparks, 
which  is  retained  in  many  versions.  But  others  follow  Albert  Schultens  in  ex- 
plaining it  to  mean  small  bundles  of  combustibles,  employed  like  matches, 
or  as  missiles  in  ancient  warfare.     This  is  generalized  by  Lowth  into  fuel, 

VOL.   II.  B 


258  ISAIAH  LI. 

while  Gcsenius  makes  it  sij^ify  specifically  burning  arrows,  fiery  darts,  the 
f3(}.ri  -nzviu/Mim  of  Eph.  vi.  10.  J.  1).  Michaelis  adopts  the  kindred  sense 
of  torches.  No  less  doubtful  is  the  meaning  of  the  vt-rb  in  this  connnption. 
Lowth  translates  the  whole  phrase,  who  heap  the  fuel  round  ahout,  and 
Vitringa,  7?//  circnmpomds  mallcolos.  Gesenius  retains  the  usual  sense  of 
girding,  and  supposes  them  to  he  described  as  wearing  the  rilp'T  at  the 
girdle.  Most  interjireters  incline  to  the  generic  sense  surroundhuj,  as 
equally  compatible  with  several  diflerent  interpretations  of  the  following 
ndnn.  Any  of  those  interpretations  is  better  than  the  desperate  device  of 
emendation,  which  is  here  resorted  to  by  Cappcllus  and  Seeker,  the  last  of 
whom  suggests  *T5<P  ;  Hitzig  proposes  '!)^^9>  ^^bich  seems  to  be  approved 
by  Ewald. — Common  to  all  the  explanations  is  the  radical  idea  of  a 
fire  kindled  by  themselves  to  their  own  eventual  destruction.  This  re- 
sult is  predicted,  as  in  many  other  cases,  under  the  form  of  a  command 
or  exhortation  to  persist  in  the  course  which  must  finally  destroy  them. 
Go  {i.  e.  go  on)  in  the  lii/ht  0/ your  fire.  This  seems  to  favour  the  opinion 
that  the  fire  is  supposed  to  have  betn  kindled  for  the  sake  of  its  light, 
which  is  implied  indeed  in  Lowth's  interpretation.  Hitzig,  however, 
understands  the  tire  to  bo  kindled  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
righteous,  instead  of  which  result,  those  who  kindle  it  are  culled  upon  to 
enter  into  it,  and  be  consumed.  For  this  is  their  appointed  doom. — From 
my  hand  is  this  to  you,  i.  e.  my  power  has  decreed  and  will  accomplish  what 
is  now  about  to  be  declared,  viz.  that  you  shall  lie  down  in  sorrow,  or  a 
place  of  sorrow,  if  with  Ewald  we  give  the  noun  the  local  sense  usual  in 
words  of  this  formation.  The  expression  is  a  general  one,  denoting  final 
ruin,  and  of  course  includes,  although  it  may  not  specifically  signify,  a 
future  state  of  misery. — It  may  here  be  mentioned,  as  a  specimen  of  mis- 
placed ingenuity,  that  J.  I).  Michaelis  understands  the  scene  depicted  to 
be  that  of  travellers  in  the  dark  who  strike  a  light,  and  when  it  is  extin- 
guished find  it  darker  than  before,  in  consequence  of  which  they  fall  among 
the  rocks,  and  hurt  themselves  severely,  which  is  meant  by  lying  down  in 
pain.  It  is  chnracttristic  of  this  writer  and  his  age,  that  although  rather 
supercilious  and  reserved  in  allowing  the  a-stlietic  merits  of  Isaiah,  he  de- 
scribes this  passage  thus  distorted  by  himself,  as  a  specimen  of  oriental 
imagers-  which  "  really  deserves  to  be  introduced  even  into  our  po«^{ry;" 
while  many  of  the  Prophet's  loftiest  flights  elsewhere,  if  not  entirely  over- 
looked, are  noticed  in  a  kind  of  apologetic  tone,  as  if  The  critic  were 
ashamed  of  his  subject.  The  sj)irit  of  such  criticism  is  not  yet  extinct, 
although  its  grosser  forms  are  superseded  by  a  purer  taste,  even  in  Ger- 
man v. 


CHAPTER    LI. 

IsTKnpRKTKRH  aro  much  divided  with  respect  to  the  particular  period 
which  constituttH  the  subject  of  this  prophecy.  The  modern  Jews  regard 
it  as  a  promise  of  deliverance  from  their  present  exile  and  dispersion  by  the 
Messiah,  whom  they  still  expect.  The  Christian  Fatliers  refer  it  to  the 
time  of  tlie  first  advent.  Modern  writers  are  divided  between  this  hypo- 
thesis, and  that  which  confines  it  U>  tlie  Itubylouish  exile.  The  truth  appears 
to  be,  that  this  chapter  is  a  direct  ct)ntinuation  of  the  preceding  declarations 
with  respect  to  the  vocation  of  the  church,  and  the  divine  administration 
towards  her.     The  possibility  of  her  increase,  as  previously  promised,  is 


Ver.  l.j  ISAIAH  LI.  259 

evinced  Ity  the  example  of  Abraham,  from  whom  all  Israel  descended,  vera. 
1-3.  In  like  manner  many  shall  be  added  from  the  Gentiles,  vers.  4-6. 
Thuir  enemies  shall  not  only  fail  to  destroy  them,  but  shall  be  themselves 
destroyed,  vers.  7,  8.  This  is  conlirmed  bv  another  historical  example,  that 
of  EgA'pt,  vers.  9,  10.  The  same  assurances  are  then  repeated,  with  a  clearer 
promise  of  the  new  dispensation,  vers.  11-1(5.  The  chapter  closes  with  a 
direct  address  to  Zion,  who,  though  helpless  in  herself  and  destitute  of 
human  aid,  is  sure  of  God's  protection  and  of  the  destruction  of  her  enemies 
and  his,  vers.  17-23. 

1.  Hearken  unto  me!  A  common  fonnula,  when  the  wTiter  or  speaker 
turns  away  from  one  object  of  address  to  another.  It  is  here  used  be- 
cause he  is  about  to  address  himself  to  the  faithful  servants  of  Jehovah, 
the  true  Israel,  who  arc  described  ay.  folio lo in g  (^or pursuiny)  afler  righteous- 
ness, i.  c.  making  it  the  end  of  all  their  efibrts  to  be  righteous,  or  conformed 
to  the  will  of  God.  The  sense  of  justifying  righteousness  or  justification  is 
as  much  out  of  place  here  as  that  of  truth,  which  is  given  by  the  Targum  ; 
except  so  far  as  all  these  terms  are  employed  in  Scripture  usage,  to  express 
the  general  idea  of  moral  goodness,  piety,  or  a  cluiracter  acceptable  in  God's 
sight.  The  original  application  of  the  phrase  here  used  is  by  Moses  (Deut. 
xvi.  20) ;  from  whom  it  is  copied  twice  by  Solomon  (Prov.  x\.  9;  xxi.  21), 
and  twice  by  Paul  (1  Tim.  vi.  11  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  22).  The  same  apostle  uses, 
in  the  same  sense,  the  more  general  expression, /o//ou;  after  good  (1  Thess. 
V.  15) ;  which  is  also  used  by  David  (Ps.  xxxviii.  21,  comp.  Ps.  xxxiv.  15). 
The  same  class  of  persons  is  then  described  as  seeking  (or  seekers  of)  Jehovah, 
i.  e.  seeking  his  presence,  praying  to  him,  worshipping  him,  consulting  him. 
The  first  description  is  more  abstract,  the  second  expresses  a  personal  re- 
lation to  Jehovah  ;  both  together  are  descriptive  of  the  righteous  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  wicked.  Now  as  these  have  ever  been  comparatively 
few,  not  only  in  relation  to  the  heathen  world,  but  in  relation  to  the  spuri- 
ous members  of  the  church  itself,  a  promise  of  vast  increase  (like  that  in 
chap.  xlix.  18-21)  might  well  appear  incredible.  In  order  to  remove  this 
doubt,  the  Prophet  here  appeals,  not,  as  in  many  other  cases,  to  the  mere 
omnipotence  of  God,  but  to  a  historical  examiile  of  precisely  the  same  kind, 
viz.  that  of  Abraham,  from  whom  the  race  of  Israel  had  already  sprung,  in 
strict  fulfilment  of  a  divine  promise. — Look  unto  the  roek  ye  have  been  hevm. 
The  earlier  grammarians  assume  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative  and  preposition, 
the  rock  from  lohich  ye  have  been  heion ;  the  later,  and  particularly  Ewald, 
reject  this  as  an  occidental  idiom,  and  suppose  the  Hebrew  phrase  to  be 
complete,  but  give  the  same  sense  as  the  others.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  the  parallel  clause,  and  to  the  hole  of  the  pit  {from  which)  ye  have  been 
digged.  The  reference  of  these  figures  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  the 
rock  of  ages  and  the  source  of  spiritual  life,  is  held  by  some  of  the  Fathers, 
one  of  whom  (Eusel)ius)  supposes  a  collateral  allusion  to  the  rock  in  which 
our  Saviour  was  entombed  ;  but  this  interpretation  is  too  mystical  even  for 
Vitringa,  who  admits  that  the  figures  of  this  verse  are  explained  in  the  next 
by  the  Pro])het  himself.  His  Dutch  taste  again  gets  the  better  of  his  judg- 
ment and  his  reverent  regard  for  the  word  of  God,  and  allows  him  to  put 
a  revolting  sense  upon  the  figures  here  employed,  in  which  Knobel  follows 
with  still  greater  coarseness.  The  tnith,  as  recognised  by  almost  all  inteqire- 
ters,  is  that  the  rock  and  pit  (or  quarry)  are  two  kindred  metaphors  for  one 
and  the  same  thing,  both  expressing  the  general  idea  of  extraction  or  descent 
(compare  chap,  xlviii.  2),  without  particular  reference  to  the  individual 
parents,  although  both  are  mentioned  in  the  next  verse,  for  the  sake  of  a 


260  ISAIAII  LI.  iVKB.  2. 

pamllcl  construction,  upon  which  it  is  almost  puerile  to  found  such  a  con- 
clusion as  the  one  in  question.  In  the  same  cate;T()ry  may  bo  safely  placed 
the  old  dispute,  whether  Abraham  is  called  a  rock  because  he  was  stionrf  in 
faith  (Horn.  iv.  20),  or  because  he  was  as  good  as  dead  (Ileb.  xi.  12)  when 
ho  received  the  jironiise.  He  is  no  more  npresented  as  a  rock  than  as  a 
pit  or  quarry,  neither  of  which  figures  is  applied  to  him  distinctively,  but 
both  toj^ether  signify  extraction  or  origin  in  a  gejiealogical  sense. 

2.  Look  unto  Abnihun  i/oiir  father  and  unto  Sarah  [that)  hare  you. 
That  Surah  is  mentioned  chiefly  ft»r  rhythmical  etTect,  may  be  inferred  from 
the  writer's  now  confiding  what  he  says  to  Abraham  alone.  Instead  of 
speaking  further  of  both  parents,  he  now  says,  For  I  have  called  hiin  one ; 
which  does  not  mean,  I  have  declared  him  to  be  such,  or  so  described  him ; 
but,  I  have  called  (t.  e.  chosen,  designated)  him,  when  he  was  only  one, 
i.e.  a  solitarA-  individual,  although  the  destined  lather  of  a  great  nation  (Gen. 
xii.  2).  This  sense  of  the  word  one  is  clear  from  K/.ek.  xxxiii.  2i,  where, 
with  obvious  allusion  to  this  verse,  it  is  put  in  opposition  to  many  :  Abr'i- 
ham  uat  onk,  and  he  inherited  the  land  ;  and  we  are  many,  (much  more 
then)  IV  the  land  yivcn  to  us  for  an  inheritance.  The  same  antithesis  is 
fur  more  obvious  and  appropriate  in  this  place,  than  that  between  Abraham, 
as  sole  heir  of  the  promise,  and  the  rest  of  men,  who  were  excluded  from 
it.  The  design  of  the  Prophet  is  not  so  much  to  magnify  the  honour  put 
upon  Abraham  by  choosing  him  out  of  the  whole  race  to  be  the  father  of 
the  faithful,  as  it  is  to  shew  the  power  and  faithfulness  of  God  in  making 
this  one  man  a  nation  like  the  stars  of  heaven  for  multitude,  according  to 
the  promise  (Gen.  xv.  5).  Xoyes's  version,  a  single  man,  is  rendered  by 
the  modern  usage  of  that  phrase  almost  ludicrously  equivocal,  and  neces- 
sarily suggests  an  idea  directly  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  the  case ;  unless 
he  really  infers  from  the  exclusive  mention  of  Abraham  in  this  clause,  that 
ho  was  called  before  his  marriage,  which  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  the 
sacred  narrative  (compare  Gen.  xi.  21),  and  xii.  1,  T)),  and,  even  if  it  were 
true,  wonltl  scarcely  have  been  solemnly  athrnied  in  this  connection,  sinco 
the  promise,  whatever  its  precise  date,  presupposed  his  marriage  as  the 
nocessary  means  of  its  fulfilment. — Interpreters,  with  almost  perfect  unani- 
mity, explaiu  the  two  verbs  at  the  cud  of  this  verse  as  expressing  i)ast  time 
(and  [blessed  him  and  caused  him  to  increase),  although  the  nir  prefixed  to 
neither  has  the  pointing  of  the  vav  conrersive,  in  default  of  which  the  pre- 
terite tran.slation  is  entirely  gratuitous  and  therefore  ungrammatical.  The 
Masoretic  pointing,  it  is  true,  is  not  of  absolute  authority,  but  it  is  of  the 
highest  value  as  the  record  of  an  ancient  critical  tradition  ;  and  the  very 
fact  that  it  departs  in  this  case  from  the  sense  which  all  interpreters  have 
felt  to  be  most  obvious  and  natural,  creates  a  strong  i)resuini)tion  that  it 
rests  upon  some  high  authority  or  some  profound  view  of  the  Proph'efs 
meaning.  Au<l  we  find  accordingly  that  by  adhering  to  the  strict  sense  of 
the  future,  we  not  oidy  act  in  accordance  with  a  most  important  general 
principle  of  exegesis,  but  obtain  a  sense  which,  though  less  obvious  than 
the  common  one,  is  really  better  in  itself  an»I  better  suited  to  the  context. 
According  to  the  usual  interpretation,  this  verse  simply  asserts  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  promise  to  Abraham,  leaving  the  reader  to  connect  it  with  what 
follows  as  he  can.  liut  by  a  strict  tmnslation  of  the  futures,  they  are  made 
to  furnish  an  easy  and  natural  transition  from  the  one  case  to  the  other, 
from  the  great  historical  example  cited,  to  the  subject  which  it  was  intended 
to  illustrate.  The  concise  phrase,  one  I  called  him.  really  includes  a  cita- 
tion of  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  aud  suggestu  the  fact  of  its  fulfilment, 


Yer.  3.]  ISAIAH  LI.  2G1 

so  far  as  this  had  yet  taken  phice.  The  Prophet,  speaking  in  Jehovah's 
name,  then  adds  a  declaration  that  the  promise  should  be  still  more  glori- 
ously verified.  As  if  he  had  said,  I  promised  to  bless  him  and  increase 
him,  and  I  did  so,  and  I ivill  hlcss  him  and  increase  him  (still).  But  how? 
]>y  shewing  mercy  to  his  seed,  as  I  have  determined  and  begun  to  do. 
Tljis  last  idea  is  expressed  in  the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse,  which  is 
then  no  longer  incoherent  or  abrupt,  but  in  the  closest  and  most  natural 
connection  with  what  goes  before.  This  consideration  might  have  less 
force  if  the  illustration  had  been  drawn  from  the  experience  of  another  race, 
for  instance  from  the  history  of  Egypt  or  Assyria,  or  even  from  the  increase 
of  the  sons  of  Lot  or  Ishmacl ;  but  when  the  promise  which  ho  wished  to 
render  credible  is  really  a  repetition  or  continuation  of  the  one  w4iich  he 
cites  as  an  illustrative  example,  the  intimate  connection  thus  established  or 
rovealed  between  them  is  a  strong  proof  that  the  explanation  which  involves 
it  is  the  true  one. 

8.  For  Jehovah  hath  comforted  Zion.  The  arbitrary  character  of  the 
usual  construction  of  these  sentences  may  be  learned  from  the  fact  that 
Kosenmiiller  and  Gesenius,  not  content  with  making  both  the  futures  at 
the  close  of  the  second  verse  preterites,  explain  both  the  preterites  in  this 
clause  as  futures ;  a  double  violation  of  analogy  and  usage,  which  seems 
to  leave  the  meaning  of  the  writer  wholly  at  the  mercy  of  the  reader  or  ex- 
pounder. From  the  same  erroneous  understanding  of  the  closing  words  of 
ver.  2  springs  the  forced  interpretation  of  the  ''3  at  the  beginning  of  this, 
as  meaning  so  (Gesenius),  thus  therefore  (Lowth),  and  the  still  more  un- 
natural construction  of  the  whole  clause  by  Hitzig,  as  the  apodosis  of  a 
comparative  sentence  beginning  in  the  first  verse  :  "  As  I  called  him  alone, 
and  blessed  him,  and  increased  him,  so  does  Jehovah  pity  Zion,"  &c.  As 
soon  as  the  strict  sense  of  the  futures  in  ver.  2  has  been  reinstated,  the 
connection  becomes  obvious,  and  ^?  retains  its  usual  and  proper  sense — 
"  I  have  blessed  and  increased  him,  and  I  will  bless  and  increase  him;  for 
Jehovah  has  begun  to  comfort  Zion."  The  strong  assurance  thus  afforded 
by  the  strict  translation  of  the  preterite  DHJ  conspires  with  analogy  and 
usage  to  give  it  the  preference  over  the  vague  evasive  present  form,  em- 
ployed by  llit/ig,  Ewald,  and  De  Wette.  This  view  of  the  connection  also 
supersedes  the  necessity  of  laying  an  unusual  stress  on  the  name  Jehovah, 
as  J.  H.  Michaelis  does,  as  if  he  hud  said,  it  is  God,  not  man,  that  com- 
forts Zion. — Gesenius  translates  DriJ,  in  this  case,  "  will  have  mercy  or 
compassion  "  {ivird  sich  erbarmeii),  in  which  he  is  followed  by  De  Wette 
and  Henderson.  But  even  his  own  Lexicon  gives  no  such  definition  of  the 
Piel,  and  the  Kiphal  though  coincident  in  this  tense  as  to  form,  would, 
according  to  usage,  take  a  preposition  after  it.  15osidcs,  the  proper  sense 
of  covvforling,  retained  by  Ewald  and  the  other  Gennans,  is  more  appropri- 
ate, because  it  expresses  not  mere  feeling  but  its  active  exhibition,  and  be- 
cause the  same  verb  is  employed  at  the  very  outset  of  these  prophecies 
(chap.  xl.  1)  in  the  same  application,  but  in  a  connection  where  the  sense 
of  pitying  or  having  mercy  is  wholly  inadequate,  if  not  inadmissible.  The 
comparison  of  that  place  also  shews  what  we  are  here  to  understand  by 
Zion,  viz.  Jehovah's  people,  of  which  it  was  the  capital,  the  sanctuary,  and 
the  symbol.  What  is  there  commanded  is  here,  in  a  certain  sort,  per- 
formed, or  its  performance  more  distinctly  and  positively  promised. — He 
hath  comforted  all  our  wastes  (or  ruins),  i.e.  restored  cheerfulness  to  what 
was  wholly  desolate.  This  phrase  proves  nothing  as  to  the  Prophet's  view- 
ing Zion  merely  as  a  ruinous  city,  since  in  any  case  this  is  the  substratum 


262  ISAIAJI  LI.  [Veb.  4. 

of  his  metaphor.  The  question  is  uot  whether  ho  has  reference  to  Zion  or 
Jerusalem  as  alown,  but  whether  this  tuwn  is  considered  merely  as  a  town, 
and  menlioued  for  its  own  sake,  or  iu  the  sense  before  explained,  as  the 
established  representative  and  emblem  of  the  church  or  chosen  people  (see 
above,  on  chap.  xlix.  21). — And  hath  placed  (or  made)  her  uUderness  like 
Eden,  and  her  desert  like  the  rjarden  of  the  Lord.  This  biautiful  comparison 
is  the  strongest  possible  exprossif'n  of  a  joyful  chanj,'e  from  total  barrenness 
and  desolation  to  the  hifjhrst  pitch  of  fertility  and  beauty.  It  is  closely 
copied  in  Ezekit-l  xxxi.  5),  but  the  same  comparison,  in  more  concise  terms, 
is  employed  by  Moses  (Gen.  xiii.  10).  Even  there,  notwithstanding  what 
is  added  about  Eg}-pt,  but  still  more  unequivocally  bore,  the  reference  is"not 
to  a  garden,  or  to  pkasurc-grounds  in  general,  as  Luther  and  several  of  the 
later  Gt-rmans  have  assumed,  with  no  small  damagj  to  the  force  and  beauty 
of  their  versions,  but  Eden  as  a  proper  name,  the  gaiden  of  Jehovah,  the 
Paradise,  as  the  Septuagint  renders  it,  both  here  and  in  Gen.  ii.  8,  the  grand 
historical  and  yet  ideal  designation  of  the  most  consummate  teirene  excel- 
lence, analogous,  if  not  still  more  nearly  related,  to  the  Grecian  pictures  of 
Arcadia  and  of  Tempe. — Joy  and  ijladness  shall  le  found  i7i  htr,  i.e.  in 
Zion,  thus  transformed  into  a  paradise.  The  plural  form,  in  I  hi  m,  employed 
by  Barnes,  is  not  only  inexact,  but  hurtful  to  the  sense,  by  withdrawing 
the  attention  from  the  central  figure  of  this  glowing  landscnjie.  Shall  le 
found,  does  not  simply  mean  shall  le,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  paraphrases  it, 
but  also  that  they  shall  be  there  accessible,  not  only  present  in  their  abstract 
essence,  as  it  were,  but  in  the  actual  experience  of  those  who  dwell  there, — 
21ianks(jii'iuy  and  the  voice  of  melody.  The  music  of  the  common  veniion 
of  this  last  clause  is  at  once  too  familiar  and  too  sacred  to  be  superseded, 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  more  distinctly  the  exact  sense  of  the 
last  word,  which  originally  signifies  the  sound  of  an  instinimcnt  or  instru- 
mental music,  but  is  afterwards  used  to  denoto'song  in  general,  or  rather  as 
a  vehicle  of  praise  to  God. 

•1.  Attend  (or  hearken)  unto  me,  n<y  people ;  and  viy  nation,  unto  me 
give  ear.  This  may  seem  to  be  a  violation  of  the  usage  which  has  beeft 
already  stated  as  employing  this  form  of  speech  to  indicate  a  change  in  the 
object  of  address.  But  such  a  change,  althuugh  a  slight  one,  takes  place 
even  here ;  for  he  seems  no  longer  to  address  those  seeking  righteousness 
exclusively,  but  the  whole  body  of  the  people  as  such.  Some  interpreters 
suppose  a  change  still  greater,  namely,  a  transition  from  the  Jews  to  the 
Gentiles.  In  order  to  admit  of  this,  the  text  must  be  amended,  or  its 
obvious  sense  explained  away.  Lowth,  of  course,  prefers  the  former 
method,  and  reads  D*py  on  the  authority  of  two  manuscripts,  and  D*'?**^  on 
the  authority  of  nine.  Gesenius  gains  the  same  end  by  explaining  '^V  and 
*Jp^N^  ns  unusual  jdural  fonns,  the  first  of  wliich  he  also  finds  in  three 
other  places  (2  Sam.  xxii.  41,  Ps.  cxliv.  2.  Lam.  iii.  14\  Ewald  denies 
the  existence  of  such  a  termination,  against  whieh  ho  argues  with  much 
force,  that  in  these  four  places,  however  inappropriate  tlie  sense  »///  people 
may  appear  to  the  intci-preter,  no  one  pretends  to  say  that  it  is  absurd  or 
impossible,  while  in  every  other  case  the  very  meaning  of  the  noun  is  so 
obscure  that  it  can  throw  no  light  upon  the  question  of  form.  The  discussion 
of  the  question  by  these  eminent  grammarians  (in  the  Lehrgelaude,  §  124, 
and  the  Kritische  (irammatik,  §  104)  has  left  the  existence  of  the  plural 
form  in  question  at  the  least  very  doubtful  (see  Nordheimer,  §  558)  ;  and 
even  if  it  bo  conceded,  it  is  confessedly  so  rare  that  it  is  not  to  be  assumed 
without  necessity  in  such  a  case  as  this,  simply  because  it  may  conceivably 


A 


Ver.  5.]  ISAIAR  LI.  263 

be  true,  when  the  sense  which  the  word  has  in  nearly  two  hundred  places 
is  perfectly  appropriate  here.  The  only  argument  in  favour  of  it,  drawn 
from  the  connection,  is  without  force,  because  the  dependence  of  the  Gen- 
tiles upon  Israel  for  saving  knowledge  might  be  just  as  well  asserted  in 
addressing  the  latter  as  the  former,  as  appears  from  the  analogy  of  chap, 
ii.  8.  The  same  reasons  which  have  now  been  stated  will  sulHce  to  set 
asiile  Maurer's  gratuitous  interpretation  of  the  words  as  singular  collectives, 
which  might  be  assumed  in  a  case  of  extreme  exegetical  necessity,  but  in 
no  other.  The  next  clause  explains  what  it  is  that  they  are  thus  called 
upon  to  hear,  viz.  that  law  from  me  shall  go  forth,  i.  e.  revelation  or  the 
true  religion,  as  an  expression  of  God's  will,  and  consequently  man's  rule 
of  duty.  In  like  manner  Paul  describes  the  gospel  as  the  law  of  faith 
(Horn.  iii.  27),  not  binding  upon  one  race  or  nation  merely,  but  htj  the 
comina)ubnenl  of  the  evcrlastiiui  God  made  known  to  all  nations,  for  the 
ohedience  of  faith  (Rom.  xvi.  26).  J.  D.  Michaelis,  followed  by  Rosen- 
miillcr  and  De  Wette,  dilutes  it  into  a  doctrine  [einfi.  Lehre),  which,  although 
correct  in  point  of  etymology,  is  justified  neither  by  the  context  nor  by 
usage.  Ewald  gives  the  same  translation  of  the  word,  but  makes  it  less 
indefinite  by  adding  the  possessive  pronoun  {incine  Lehre).  The  meaning 
of  the  clause  is  that  the  nations  can  expect  illumination  only  from  one 
quavljor. — The  same  thing  is  then  said  in  another  form.  And  my  jiuhfment 
(^fr'^  an  equivalent  to  '"^^1^^,  and  combined  with  it  like  lex  and  jus  in 
Latin)  for  a  liijht  of  the  nations  (as  in  chap.  xHi.  C,  xlix.  G)  will  I  cause  to 
rest,  i.  e.  fix,  establish.  Jarchi  explains  it  by  the  synonyme  O^llS,  which 
is  frequently  emploj-ed  in  this  sense  {c.  g.  chap.  xlvi.  7  ;  2  Kings  xvii.  29). 
The  meanings  given  to  the  word  by  Calvin  {patefaciam),  Cocceius  (pro- 
movebo),  Lowth  {cause  to  break  forth),  and  others,  are  either  wholly  con- 
jectural or  founded  on  a  false  et^inology.  Aben  Ezra  speaks  of  some  as 
having  made  it  a  denominative  from  Vi"),  meaning  "  I  will  do  it  in  a 
moment."  Kimchi  strangely  says  that  ^''^V  '^'^^7  may  mean  in  the  presence 
of  the  Gentiles ;  a  suggestion  which  savours  of  rabbinical  reluctance  to 
believe  in  the  conversion  of  the  world  to  God.  As  specimens  of  exegesis 
on  the  most  contracted  scale,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  Piscator  under- 
stands by  law,  in  this  verse,  Cyrus's  decree  for  the  restoration  of  the  Jew- 
ish exiles,  and  by  light  the  knowledge  of  this  great  event  among  the  nations; 
whereas  Grotius  explains  judgment  to  mean  penal  inflictions  on  the  Baby- 
lonians, and  light  the  evidence  thereby  afforded  that  Jehovah  was  the  true 
God.  The  groundless  and  injurious  protrusion  of  the  Babylonish  exile  as 
the  great  theme  of  the  prophecy  is  here  abandoned  even  by  Kimchi  and 
Abarbenel,  although  they  refer  the  promise  to  the  advent  of  Messiah  as  still 
future.  The  simple  proposition  that  the  world  can  be  converted  only  by 
a  revelation,  admits  no  more  of  being  thus  restricted  than  any  of  the  spiri- 
tual promises  and  prophecies  contained  in  the  New  Testament. 

5.  Near  (is)  my  righteousness,  i.  e.  the  exhibition  of  it  in  the  changes 
previously  promised  and  threatened.  Near,  as  often  elsewhere  in  the  pro- 
phecies, is  an  indefinite  expression  which  describes  it  simply  as  approach- 
ing, and  as  actually  near  to  the  perceptions  of  the  Prophet,  or  to  any  one 
who  occupies  the  same  point  of  vision. — Gone  forth  is  my  salvation.  Not 
only  is  the  purpose  formed,  and  the  decree  gone  forth,  but  the  event  itself, 
in  the  sense  just  explained,  may  be  described  as  past  or  actually  passing. 
Hit/.ig,  however,  understands  '^VJ  to  mean  "it  goes  forth  from  my  mouth," 
as  in  chap,  xlviii.  3,  Iv.  11.  Umbreit  agrees  with  Vitringa  in  supposing 
an  allusion  to  the  rising  of  the  sun  (Ps.  xix,  6,  7),  or,  as  Gesenius  sug- 


264  JSAIAn  LI.  [Veb.  6. 

gests,  to  the  dawning  of  the  day  (chap,  xlvii.  11);  wliilo  Ewald  and 
Knolitl  understand  it  as  refcrriug  to  the  tspiiiigiug  or  incipient  germination 
of  plants,  which  is  properly  expressed  by  npv  (chap.  xlii.  9),  the  two 
verbs  being  elsewhere  used  as  parallels  in  this  sense  (Job  v.  G).  But  none 
of  these  ingenious  explanations  is  so  natural  as  that  which  gives  i<V)  the 
same  sense  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz.  that  of  issuing  or  going  forth 
from  God  (conceived  as  resident  in  heaven  or  in  Zion)  to  the  heathen 
world. — And  my  arms  bhall  jtulye  the  nations.  As  the  foregoing  clause 
contains  a  promise,  some  interpreters  suppose  it  to  be  necessar}'  to  give 
judge  the  favourable  sense  of  vindicating,  righting  (as  in  chap.  i.  17,  23), 
or  at  least  the  generic  one  of  ruling  (as  in  1  Sam.  viii.  5).  lint  nothing  can 
be  more  in  keeping  with  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of  this  book  in 
particular,  than  the  simultaneous  exhibition  of  God's  justice  in  his  treatment 
both  of  friends  and  foes.  (Compare  chap.  i.  27.)  There  is  no  objection, 
thercore,  to  Jarchi's  explanation  of  the  verb  as  meaning  here  to  punish; 
this  at  least  may  be  included  as  a  part  of  the  idea  wbich  it  was  intended 
to  express. — J.  1).  Michaelis,  supposing  the  construction  of  J^^l?  (which  is 
feminine)  with  a  masculine  verb  to  be  uugrammatical,  proposes,  by  a 
change  of  punctuation,  to  connect  the  one  with  what  precedes,  and  then  to 
read,  the  nations  shall  he  judged.  This  h\-percriticism  provokes  Gesenius 
to  convict  its  author  of  deficiency  in  Hebrew  grammar,  which  he  does  by 
shewing  that  in  Gen.  xlix.  2i  and  Dan.  xi.  81  this  form  of  the  plural  is 
construed  as  a  masculine,  to  which  he  adds  a  like  use  of  the  singular  itself 
in  Isa.  xvii,  5.  For  me  shall  the  islands  uait,  i.  e.  for  me  they  must  wait, 
until  I  reveal  myself  they  must  remain  in  darkness.  (See  above,  on  chap, 
xlii.  4.)  Here  again,  as  in  chaps,  xli.  1,  xlii.  4,  Ac,  D\'X  is  explained  to 
mean  lands,  distant  lands,  coasts,  distant  coasts,  western  lands,  Europe, 
Northern  Asia,  and  Asia  Minor.  As  in  all  the  former  instances,  however, 
the  usual  sense  of  islands  is  entirely  appropriate,  as  a  poetical  or  repre- 
sentative expression  for  countries  in  general,  with  more  particular  reference 
to  those  across  the  sea. — And  in  my  arm  they  nhcdl  hope,  i.  c.  in  the  exer- 
cise of  my  almighty  power.  As  in  chap.  xlii.  G,  the  sense  is  not  so  much 
that  they  shall  exercise  a  feeling  of  trust,  but  that  this  will  be  their  only 
hope  or  dependence.  To  be  enlightened,  they  must  wait  for  my  revela- 
tion ;  to  be  saved,  for  the  exertion  of  my  power.  It  is  not  descriptive, 
therefore,  of  the  feelings  of  the  nations  after  the  way  of  salvation  is  made 
known  to  them,  but  of  iheir  helpless  and  desperate  condition  until  they 
hear  it.  True  to  their  favourite  liyjiotheses,  Piscator  understands  by 
islands  the  Israelitish  captives  in  Assyria.  (Jrotius  the  IVrt^ians  residing  on 
the  sea-coast  who  were  not  idolaters  !  Knobel,  with  equal  confidence  and 
equal  reason,  makes  the  verse  refer  to  the  downfall  of  Croesus  and  the 
conquests  of  Cyrus. 

(!.  Iiiiise  to  the  heavens  your  ryes,  and  look  unto  the  earth  h'neath.  A 
similar  form  of  address  cccurs  above,  in  chap  xl.  20.  (Compare  Gen. 
XV.  '}.)  Heaven  and  earth  are  here  put,  as  in  many  other  places,  for  the 
whole  frame  of  nature.  The  next  clause  explains  why  they  are  called  upon 
to  look.  For  the  heavens  Ul;e  smoke  are  dissolved  or  driven  away.  The  verb 
in  this  form  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  the  int<'rjireter8  have  tried  in  vain  to 
derive  its  meaning  here  from  other  cognate  forms  of  the  same  root,  which 
all  have  reference  to  salting  (from  the  primitive  noun  n^p,  salt).  So 
Hymniachus  in  this  place,  dyjnoum.  But  this,  according  to  analogy,  would 
nilher  imply  perpetuity  than  its  opposite.  The  link  between  them  may 
consist  in  the  idea  of  reducing  to  powder  or  minut<!  dubt  by  trituration. 


Ver.  G.J  ISAIAH  LI.  '  265 

■which  is  equally  appropriate  to  salt,  and  to  the  dissolution  of  any  solid  sub- 
stance. Most  writers  give  this  verb  a  future  sense  (or  a  present  one  as  an 
evasive  substitute),  because  the  real  future  follows;  but  for  this  verj' reason 
it  may  be  presumed  that  the  writer  used  distinct  forms  to  express  distinct 
ideas,  and  that  he  first  gives  a  vivid  description  of  the  dissolution  as  already 
past,  and  thin  foretells  its  consummation  as  still  future. — And  lite  earlli 
Ukr  the  fiarmcnt  (which  grows  old)  slioU  f/raw  old  (or  xrenr  out).  The  same 
comparison  occurs  above  in  chap.  1.  9,  and  serves  to  identify  the  passages 
as  parts  of  one  continued  composition.  And  Us  inhahitant  shall  die, 
)3"iO?.  This  is  a  diliicult  expression.  Cocceius  alone  proposes  three  dis- 
tinct interpretations,  all  peculiar  to  himself.  In  his  version  he  translates 
the  phrase  iit  (iidvis,  which  appears  to  mean  "  like  anybody  else."  But  in 
his  commentary  he  suggests  that  it  may  possibly  mean  qiiemndmodiimprolus, 
making  |3  an  adjective,  and  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  death  of  the 
righteous,  as  described  in  chap.  Ivii.  1,  2.  His  third  supposition  is  that 
this  is  a  case  of  aposiopesis,  or  interrupted  construction,  and  that  the  writer 
first  says  thei/  shall  die  like — but  before  the  comparison  is  finished  ends  by 
saying  so — as  if  he  pointed  to  the  spectacle  before  him. — Samuel  Luzzatto 
makes  the  phrase  mean  in  an  instant,  strictly  in  the  time  required  to  say 
I?,  which  he  compares  to  the  German  phrase,  in  einem  Nu.  Apart  from 
these  ingenious  notions,  there  are  only  two  interpretations  of  the  phrase 
which  are  entitled  to  notice.  The  first  takes  both  words  in  their  ordinary 
sense,  and  understands  the  whole  as  an  intensive  expression  just  so  or 
craellij  so.  This  seems  to  be  the  sense  intended  by  the  Septuagint  {wcm^ 
raZra)  and  Vulgate  {sicut  here),  although  they  adhere  less  closely  to  the 
form  of  the  original  than  Schmidius  [sicut  sic)  and  Riickert  {so  uie  so). 
The  only  other  recent  versions  which  retain  this  sense  are  those  of  Barnes  and 
Henderson.  Noyes  and  the  modem  Germans  all  adopt  the  opinion  of  Do 
Dieu,  Gussetius,  and  Yitringa,  that  I?  is  the  singular  of  0''??,  the  word 
translated  lice  in  the  history  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt  (Exod.  viii.  12,  13),  but 
explained  by  the  later  lexicographers  to  mean  a  kind  of  stinging  gnat. 
Supposing  the  essential  idea  to  be  that  of  a  contemptible  animalcule, 
Vitringa  renders  it  instar  vermiciili,  Lowth  still  more  freely  like  the  vilest 
insect.  Noyes  simply  says  I  Hie  flies,  which  scarcely  expresses  the  compari- 
son supposed  by  these  writers  to  have  been  intended.  It  is  not  impossible 
that  this  ingenious  but  fanciful  translation  w-ill  yet  be  abandoned  in  its  turn 
by  most  interpreters  for  that  recommended  by  analogy  and  usage,  as  well 
as  by  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  versions.  The  inhahitants  shall  die  like 
a  ijnat,  is  a  meaning  which,  in  order  to  le  purchased  at  so  dear  a  rate, 
ought  to  possess  some  marked  superiority  above  the  old  one,  they  shall  It/ce- 
nise  perish,  to  which  there  may  possibly  be  an  allusion  in  our  Saviour's 
words  recorded  in  Luke  xiii.  3,  5. — The  contrast  to  this  general  destruction 
is  contained  in  the  last  clause. — .hid  tny  salratiott  to  eternilij  shall  be,  and 
my  ririhteousness  shall  not  he  broken,  i.  e.  shall  not  cease  from  being  what  it 
is,  in  which  sense  the  same  verb  is  evidently  used  by  Isaiah  elsewhere 
(chap.  vii.  8).  In  this,  as  in  many  other  cases,  salvation  and  rifjhtcoiisnesis 
are  not  synonymous,  but  merely  correlative  as  cause  and  effect.  (See 
above,  on  chap.  xlii.  G.)  The  only  question  as  to  this  clause  is  whether  it 
is  a  hypothetical  or  absolute  proposition.  If  the  former,  then  the  sense  is 
that  until  (or  even  if)  the  frame  of  mture  be  dissolved,  the  justice  and 
salvation  of  Jehovah  shall  remain  unshaken.  This  explanation  is  preferred 
by  Jeseph  Kimchi,  Rosenmiillcr,  Gesenius,  and  Maurer.  The  other  inter- 
pretation understands  the  first  clause  as  a  positive  and  independent  declara- 


260  ISAJ.ill  LI.  \\eti.  7-0. 

tion  that  the  heavens  and  earth  shall  bo  dissolved,  which  Yitringa 
understands  to  mean  that  the  old  economy  shall  cease,  while  others  give 
these  words  their  literal  meanin;^.  All  these  hypotheses  are  recoucileable 
hy  making  the  first  clause  mean,  as  similar  expressions  do  mean  elsewhere, 
that  the  most  extraordinary  chau^^'cs  shall  be  witnosscil,  moral  and  physical; 
but  that  amidst  theui  all  this  one  thing  t;hall  remain  unchangeable,  the 
righteousness  of  God  as  displayed  in  the  salvation  of  his  people.  (See 
chaps,  xl.  8,  Ixv.  17  ;  Mat.  v.  IB  ;  1  John  ii.  17.)  Knobel  thinks  that  the 
ancient  prophets  actually  looked  for  a  complete  revolution  in  the  f;ice  of 
nature,  coelanL-ous  and  coii;cideut  with  the  moral  and  spiritual  changes 
which  they  foretold. 

7.  Ileurkeii  unto  me,  ye  tliat  knoio  ii<jhteoxisncss,  peojih  {with)  my  hno  in 
their  heart ;  fear  not  the  reprotich  of  men,  anil  hy  their  scnffs  be  not  broken 
(in  spirit,  /.  e.  terrified).  The  distinction  here  implied  is  still  that  between 
the  righteous  and  the  wicked  as  the  two  great  classes  of  mankind.  Those 
who  are  described  in  ver.  1  as  seekiny  after  riyhtcousnrss  are  hero  said  to 
knoic  it,  i.  e.  know  it  by  experience.  Vitringa  and  Gcsenius  explain  the 
Hebrew  verb  as  meaning  love  ;  but  this  is  an  arbitrary  substitution  of  what 
may  be  considered  as  implied  for  what  is  really  expressed.  The  presence 
of  the  law  in  the  heatt  denotes  not  mere  aflection  for  it,  but  a  correct  appre- 
hension of  it,  as  the  heart  in  Hebrew  is  put  for  the  whole  mind  or  soul ;  it 
is  therefore  a  just  parallel  to  knowimj  in  the  other  member  of  the  clause. — 
The  opposite  class,  or  those  who  know  not  what  is  right,  and  who  have  not 
God's  law  in  their  heart,  are  comprehended  under  the  generic  title  man, 
With  particular  reference  to  the  derivation  of  the  Hebrew  word  from  a  root 
meaning  to  be  weak  or  sickly,  so  that  its  apjdication  here  suggests  the  idea 
of  their  frailty  and  mortality,  as  a  sufficient  reason  why  God's  people 
should  not  be  afraid  of  them. 

8.  For  like  the  (moth-eaten)  ynrmcnt  shall  the  moth  devour  them,  and  like 
the  (worm-eaten)  vool  shall  the  norm  devour  them  ;  and  my  riyhteomness  to 
eternity  shall  b:',  and  my  salvation  to  an  aye  of  ayes.  The  same  contrast 
between  God's  immutability,  and  the  brief  duration  of  his  enemies,  is  pre- 
sented in  chap.  1.  0,  and  in  ver.  6  above. 

9.  Auakr,  airnke,  put  on  sfrenyf/i,  arm  of  Jehovah  ;  awake,  as  {in  the)  days 
of  old,  fhr  ayes  of  eternities ;  art  not  thou  the  same  that  hewed  Jiahah  in  pieces, 
that  uouiided  the  serpent  or  drayon  ?  The  Septuagint  makes  Jerusalem  the 
object  of  address,  in  which  it  is  followed  by  some  modern  writers,  who  sup- 
pose the  aim  if  Jehnah  to  be  mentioned  as  a  synonyme,  or  figurative  para- 
phrase of  the  strenyth  with  which  she  is  exhorted  to  invest  herself.  This 
addition  would,  however,  be  at  once  so  harsh  and  so  gratuitous,  that  most 
inteqiretcrs  njipenr  to  acquiesce  in  the  more  obvious  explanation  oi  the 
words  as  addressed  directly  to  the  ann  of  Jehovah  as  the  symbol  of  his 
power.  Gesenius's  idea,  that  Jehovah  thus  calls  upon  his  own  arm  to  wake, 
is  as  unnatural  as  Vitringa's  supposition  of  a  chonis  of  saints  or  doctors. 
The  only  probable  hypothesis  is  that  which  \nil8  the  words  into  the  mouth 
of  the  people,  or  of  tlie  prophet  as  their  representative.  The  verse  is  then 
a  highly  figtirative,  but  by  no  means  an  obscure,  appeal  to  the  former  exer- 
tion of  that  power,  as  a  reason  for  its  renewed  exertion  in  the  present  case. 
The  i)articular  example  cited  seems  to  be  the  overthrow  of  Kgypt.  hero  de- 
scribed by  the  enigmatical  name  Hahah,  for  the  origin  and  sens*'  of  which  see 
vol.  i.  p.  47/).  The  same  thing  is  probably  intended  by  the  parallel  term  PJJ?, 
whether  this  be  understood  to  mean  an  aquatic  monster  in  the  general,  or 
more  specifically  the  crocodile,  the  natural  and  immemorial  emblem  of  Egj-pt. 


Ver.  10-13.]  ISAIAH  LI.  267 

10.  Art  not  thou  the  same  that  dried  the  sea,  the  waters  of  the  great  deep, 
that  placed  the  depths  of  the  sea  (as)  a  ivay  for  the  passage  of  redeemed  ones  ? 
The  allusion  to  the  overthrow  of  Egypt  is  carried  out  aud  completed  by  a 
distinct  mention  of  the  miraculous  passage  of  the  Red  Sea.  The  interro- 
gative form  of  the  sentence  is  equivalent  to  a  direct  affirmation  that  it  is  the 
same  arm,  or  in  other  words,  that  the  same  power  which  destroyed  the 
Egyptians  for  Ihe  sake  of  Israel  still  exists,  and  may  again  be  exerted  for 
a  similar  purpose.  The  confidence  that  this  will  be  done  is  expressed  some- 
what abruptly  in  the  next  verse. 

11.  And  the  ransomed  of  Jehovah  shall  return  and  cotne  to  Zion  with  shout- 
in;/,  and  everlasting  joy  upon  their  head;  gladness  and  joy  shall  overtalce  {them), 
sorroiu  and  sighing  have  fled  away.  The  same  words  occur  in  chap.  xxxv.  10, 
except  that  •1J''P'!  is  there  written  in  its  usual  form,  without  the  final  1,  and 
that  -IDJ  is  preceded  by  the  Vav  conversive.  Some  manuscripts  exhibit  the 
same  reading  here,  aud  the  diflerence  might  be  considered  accidental,  but 
for  the  fact  that  such  variations  are  often  made  intentionally.     See  p.  42. 

12.  /,  /  atn  he  that  comforteth  you ;  who  art  thou,  that  thou  shouldst  he 
afraid  of  man  {who)  is  to  die,  and  of  the  son  of  man  who  {as)  grass  is  to  he 
given?  The  important  truth  is  here  reiterated,  that  Jehovah  is  not  only 
the  deliverer,  but  the  sole  deliverer  of  his  people,  and  as  the  necessary  con- 
sequence, that  they  have  not  only  no  need  but  no  right  to  be  afraid,  which 
seems  to  be  the  force  of  the  interrogation,  1(7(0  art  them  that  thou  shouldst 
he  afraid?  or  still  more  literally.  Who  art  thou  and  thou  hast  been  afraid? 
i.  c.  consider  who  is  thy  protector,  and  then  recollect  that  thou  hast  been 
afraid.  The  etymological  import  of  t^"13.^  is  rendered  still  more  prominent 
in  this  case  by  the  addition  of  the  word  riTOJ,  before  which  a  relative  may 
be  supplied  in  order  to  conform  it  to  our  idiom,  although  the  original  con- 
struction is  rather  that  of  a  complete  but  parenthetical  proposition.  '*  Afraid 
of  man  (he  shall  die),  and  of  the  son  of  man  (as  grass  he  shall  be  given)." 
This  last  verb  is  commonly  explained  as  if  simply  equivalent  to  he  shall  he 
or  shall  become,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  its  usage  elsewhere.  Some 
adhere  more  closely  to  the  strict  sense  by  supposing  it  to  mean  he  shall  he 
given  up,  abandoned  to  destruction.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  a 
grammatical  ellipsis  of  the  preposition  ?,  since  the  relation  of  resemblance 
is  in  man}-  cases  suggested  b}'  a  simple  apposition,  as  in  the  English  phrase, 
he  reigns  a  sovereign.     On  the  comparison  itself,  sec  above,  chap.  xl.  G. 

13.  And  hast  forgotten  Jeftovah  thy  JIafcer,  spreading  tlie  lieavens  and 
founding  tfie  earth,  and  hast  tremhled  continually  all  tlie  day,  J'rom  bej'ore  tJie 

wrath  of  the  oppressor  as  lie  made  ready  to  destroy?  And  wlicre  is  (now)  tlic 
urath  of  the  oppressor?  The  form  of  expression  in  the  first  clause  makes  it 
still  more  clear,  that  the  statement  in  ver.  12  is  not  merely  hypothetical 
but  historical,  implying  that  they  had  actually  feared  man  and  forgotten 
God.  The  epithets  added  to  God's  name  are  not  merely  ornamental,  much 
less  superfluous,  but  strictly  appropriate,  because  suggestive  of  almighty 
power,  which  ensured  the  performance  of  his  promise  and  the  etfectual 
protection  of  his  people. — Continually  all  the  dag  is  an  emphatic  pleonasm, 
such  as  is  occasionally  used  in  eveiy  language. — From  before  is  a  common 
Hebrew  idiom  for  because  of,  on  account  of,  but  may  here  be  taken  in  its 
strict  sense  as  expressive  of  alarm  and  flight  before  an  enemy.  (See  chap, 
ii.  19.) — Some  render  "l??'^!?  as  if,  to  which  there  are  two  olyections :  first, 
the  want  of  any  satisf\ictory  authority  from  usage  ;  and  secondly,  the  fact 
that  the  words  then  imply  that  no  such  attempt  has  really  been  made.  As 
if  he  could  destroy  would  be  appropriate  enough,  because  it  is  merely  an 


2fi8  ISAIAII  LI.  [Vkr.  14,  15. 

indirect  denial  of  his  power  to  do  so  ;  but  it  cannot  be  intended  to  deny 
that  lie  Lad  aimed  at  it. — \))2  is  particularly  used  in  nfcrcnce  to  the  pre- 
paration of  the  bow  for  shooting  by  the  adjustment  of  the  arrow  on  the 
string;  some  suppose  that  it  specifically  signifies  the  act  of  taking  aim. 
(Ps.  vii.  13,  xi.  2,  xxi.  13.) — The  question  at  the  close  implies  that  the 
wrath  is  at  an  end,  and  the  oppressor  himself  vanished.  We  have  no  au- 
thority for  limiting  this  reference  to  any  particular  historical  event.  It  is 
as  if  he  had  said,  How  often  have  you  trembled  when  your  opprt-ssors 
threatt-ned  to  destroy  you,  and  where  are  they  now  ?  lieck  absurdly  ima- 
gines that  the  writer  here  betrays  himself  as  writing  afli-r  tlu'  (.vent  which 
ho  alftcts  to  foretell. — P^wald  seems  to  make  n'np'n  a  denominative  from 
l^nt;",  meaning  to  send  to  hell  {in  die  Hulle  :ii  sniilrii) ;  but  this,  although 
it  strengthens  the  expression,  seems  to  do  it  at  the  cost  of  philological 
exactness. 

M.  J  ft'  hastnis  bowing  to  be  loosed,  and  he  shall  not  die  in  the  pit,  and  hit 
bread  shall  not/ail.  The  essential  idea  is  that  of  liberation,  but  with  some 
obscurity  in  the  expression.  Some  give  to  nJS;V  here  and  in  chap.  Ixiii.  1 
the  sense  of  marching,  which  would  here  be  approja-iate,  but  could  not  be 
so  easily  reconciled  with  the  other  cases  where  the  woid  occurs.  The  mo- 
dern lexicographers  appear  to  be  agreed  that  the  radical  meaning  of  the 
verb  rs  that  of  bending,  either  lackward  (as  in  chap.  Ixiii.  1)  or  downward 
(as  in  Jor.  xlviii.  12,  and  here).  'J'lie  latest  versions  accordingly  explain  it 
us  a  poetical  description  of  the  prisoner  bowed  down  under  chains.  With 
still  more  exactness  it  may  be  translated  as  a  participle  qualifying  the  in- 
definiti'  Fubject  of  the  verb  at  the  beginning.  There  is,  however,  no  objec- 
tion to  the  usual  constniction  of  tlie  word  as  a  noun  ;  the  sense  remains  the 
same  in  either  case. — The  next  clause  is  sometimes  taken  as  an  indirect 
subjunctive  proposition,  that  he  should  not  die  ;  but  it  is  best  to  make  it  a 
direct  affirmation  that  he  shall  not.  Ewald  gives  rinU'  a  sense  correspond- 
ing to  that  of  the  verb  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  renders  the  entire  phrase 
fur  hell,  i.  e.  so  as  to  descend  into  it.  If  the  noun  be  taken  in  this  sense, 
or  in  the  kindred  one  of  [frave,  the  preposition  cannot  mean  in,  a  sense, 
moreover,  not  agreeable  to  usage.  Those  who  give  it  that  sense  here  are 
under  the  necessity  of  making  nn*J'  mean  the  dungeon,  which  is  a  frequent 
sense  of  the  analogous  teim  112.  Rut  whether  the  phrase  in  question  mean 
/or  hrll,  or  for  the  ijrnve,  or  in  the  ]>it,  or  ti>  dc--^' ruction,  the  general  sense 
is  still  that  the  captive  shall  not  perish  in  cnptivity.  This  general  promise 
is  then  rendered  more  specific  by  the  assumnce  that  he  shall  not  starve 
to  death,  which  seems  to  be  the  only  sense  that  can  be  put  upon  the  last 
clause. 

1.5.  And  I  {am)  Jehorah  thy  God,  rousing  the  sea,  and  then  it  it  iraret 
roar;  Jehorah  of  host x  {is)  his  name.  Another  appeal  to  thf>  power  of 
(lod  as  a  pledge  for  the  pirforniance  of  his  ]>roniise.  y?i  has  been  under- 
stood in  two  directly  opposite  senses,  that  of  stiUimj  and  that  of  atjitntitiij. 
The  first  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  not  unfrcqjient  use  of  the  deri- 
vative conjtigations  in  the  sense  of  quieting  or  being  quiet.  The  other 
rests  upon  an  Arabic  analogy,  confirmed,  however,  by  the  context,  as 
^Cn*l  must  indicate  a  consequence  {and  then  or  so  that),  and  not  an  ante- 
c<'ilent  {ichnt  the;/  mar),  as  explained  by  the  writi^rs  who  take  VP  in  the 
sensi'  of  stillinij,  and  even  by  (Jesenius,  who  gives  that  verb  the  si  nse  of 
frightening.  Home  of  the  older  writ<>rs  seem  to  havt-  ngarded  y?1  as  a 
transposition  for  1J?J,  rebuking,  a  word  often  used  to  express  the  divine 
control  over  nature,  and  especially  the  sea.     (See  above,  chap.  xvii.  18.) 


Veb.  lG-18.]  ISAIAH  LI.  '  269 

16.  And  I  have  j^ut  my  words  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  the  .shaduir  of  my 
hand  I  have  hid  thee,  to  plant  the  heavens,  and  to  found  thi  earth,  and  to  nay 
to  Zion,  Thou  art  my  people.  Tliat  tlu'se  words  are  not  uddrossL'd  to  Zioii 
or  the  church  is  evident,  because  in  the  last  chiuse  she  is  spoken  of  in  the 
third  person,  and  addressed  in  the  next  verse  with  a  sudden  change  to  the 
feminine  form  from  the  masculine,  which  is  here  used.  That  it  is  not  t!ie 
Prophet,  may  be  readily  inferred  from  the  nature  of  the  work  described  in 
the  second  clause.  The  only  remaininr:;  supposition  is,  that  the  Messiah  is 
the  object  of  address,  and  that  his  work  or  mission  is  here  described,  viz. 
to  plant  the  heavens,  /.  e.  to  establish  them,  perhaps  with  allusion  to  the 
erection  of  a  tent  by  the  insertion  of  its  stakes  in  the  ground.  There  is  no 
need  of  rea'ling  nio^?,  as  Lowth  does,  since  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  is 
rather  in  favour  of  variation  than  of  scrupulous  transcription.  The  whole 
clause  is  equivalent  to  creatin;/  a  new  xvovld,  which  must  here  be  taken  in  a 
figurative  sense;  because  the  literal  creation,  as  a  thing  already  past,  v.-ould 
here  bo  inappropriate,  especially  when  followed  by  the  words,  to  sai/  to 
Zion,  ThoK  art  my  peo^dc.  Nothing  is  gained  by  referring  the  infinitives  to 
God  himself,  as  Kosenmiiller  does ;  because  the  person  here  addressed  is 
still  described  as  the  instrument,  if  not  as  the  efficient  agent.  The  new 
creation  thus  announced  can  only  mean  the  reproduction  of  the  church  in 
a  new  form,  by  what  we  usually  call  the  change  of  dispensations.  The 
outward  economy  should  all  be  nev,-,  and  yet  the  identity  of  the  chosen 
people  sliould  remain  unbroken.  For  he  whom  God  had'  called  to  plnnt 
new  heavens  and  to  found  a  new  earth,  was  Hkewise  commissioned  to  say 
to  Zion,  Thou  art  still  my  people. 

17.  This  may  be  considered  a  continuation  of  the  address  be»un  at  the 
end  of  the  preceding  verse.     The  same  voice  which  there  said,  Thou  art 
viy  people,   may   be   here   supposed   to  say.  House   tliyself!   rouse   thi/self! 
Arise,  Jerusalem!  (thou)  who  hast  drunk  at  the  hand  of  Jehovah  the  cup  of 
his  urath ;  the  boai  of  the  cup  of  reeliuy  thou  hast  drunk,   thou  hast  wrung 
(or  sucked)  out,  i.  e.  drunk  its  very  ilregs.     Some  of  the   rabbins  give  the 
sense  of  dregs  to  r\y2p  itself.     The  ancient  versions  either  overlook  it,  or 
explain  it  to  mean  a  certain  kind  of  en  p.    The  modern  writers  are  disposed 
to  regard  it  as  a  pleonastic  expression,  similar  to  yohlet-cup.     According 
to  its  probable  etymology,  as  traceable  in  Hebrew  and  Arabic,  the  word 
denotes  the  convex  surface  of  a  cup  or  bowl,  while  D13  is  properlv  the  area 
or  space  within.     The  cup  is  of  course  put  for  its  contents,  a  natural  figure 
for  anything   administered   or  proffered   by   a  higher   power.     (Compare 
Jer.  XXV.  15,  10,  xlix,  12,  li.  7,  Lam.  iv.  21,  Obad.  IG,  Ezek.  xxiii.  31 
Rev.  xiv.  10.) 

18.  There  is  no  yuide  to  her  (or  no  one  leadiny  her)  of  all  the  sons  she  has 
Irouyht  forth,  and  no  one  yraspiny  her  hand  of  all  the  sons  she  has  brouqht  up. 
From  addressing  Zion  in  the  second  person,  ho  now  proceeds  to  sneak  of 
her  in  the  third.  This  verse  is  not  so  much  descriptive  of  unnatural 
abandonment  as  it  is  of  weakness.  The  sense  is  not  that  no  one  will,  but 
that  no  one  can  protect  or  guide  her.  Some  interpreters  suppose  the 
figure  of  a  drunken  person  to  be  still  continued.  J.  D.  Michaelis  even 
goes  so  far  as  to  translate  the  first  words  of  the  verse,  No  one  hrimp  her 
a  drink  of  water.  This  is  no  doubt  founded  on  the  usual  application  of 
this  verb  to  the  watering  of  flocks,  from  which  is  deduced  the  secondary 
sense  of  guidance  in  general.  Hengstenberg  gives  to  it,  wherever  it  occur.s, 
the  sense  of  fostering  or  nourishing.     (See  above,  on  chap.  xl.  11.)     The 


270  ISAIAH  LI.  [Ver.  19-21. 

mother  and  the  pons,  i.  c.  the  people,  collectively  and  indivi  lually,  are  dis- 
tinguished only  by  a  fij^ure  of  speech. 

19.  lioth  those  thing/t  are  befalling  (or  ahouf  to  befall)  thee:  tcho  will 
mourn  for  thee?  iraxtinr/  and  ruin,  famine  and  sirord:  tcho  (but)  I  trili 
comfort  thrcf  A  difficulty  here  is  the  mention  of  two  thiwjx  in  the  first 
clause,  followed  by  an  enumeration  of  four  in  the  second.  Some  suppose 
tlic  two  things  to  refer  to  what  precedes,  others  to  wasting  and  ruin  only. 
Grotius  thinks  that  wasting  and  famine,  ruin  and  sword,  are  to  be  com- 
bined as  synonymes.  The  modern  writers  understand  the  si-cond  phrase 
ns  an  explanation  or  specification  of  the  first.  As  if  he  had  said,  mtslinrf 
and  ruin  (such  as  are  produced  hy)  famine  and  thesu-unl.  The  last  words 
of  the  verse,  strictly  translated,  mean,  uho  I  uill  comfort  thee.  The  Tar- 
gum  limits  the  interrogation  to  the  first  word,  and  supposes  the  others  to 
contain  the  answer.  The  same  eonstniction  is  given  by  Henderson,  Whof 
I  mtjxclfwill  comfort  thee.  A  much  greater  number  of  interpreters  include 
the  whole  in  the  interrogation,  and  either  give  the  verb  a  subjunctive  form, 
who  am  I  that  I  shoidd  comfort  (hce?  or  take  *P  as  an  adverb,  hoic  shall  I 
comfort  thee?  Hitzig,  by  irhom  (i.e.  by  what  example  of  similar  or  greater 
suffering)  shall  I  comfort  thee?  Still  a  difllrent  construction,  although 
yielding  substantially  the  same  sense,  is  adopted  aliove,  in  the  translation 
of  the  verso.  The  general  meaning  evidently  is,  that  her  giiuf  was  beyond 
the  reach  of  any  human  comforter. 

20.  Thij  suns  u-ere  faint  (or  hetidesa).  This  explains  why  they  did  not 
come  to  her  assistance. — Theij  lie  at  the  head  of  all  the  streets.  A  conspi- 
cuous place  is  evidently  meant,  but  whether  the  corners  or  the  higher  part 
of  an  uneven  street,  is  a  question  of  small  moment. — Like  a  u-ild  bull  in  a 
net,  i.e.  utterly  unable  to  exert  their  strength.  The  Hebrew  word  K1PI  is 
no  doubt  identical  with  the  I^^Jj^  of  Dent.  xiv.  5,  and  therefore  must  denote 
an  animal.  The  ancient  versions  favour  its  identity  with  the  on/.r,  a  species 
of  antelope  or  wild  goat.  Geseuius  gives  this  explanation  in  his  Lexicon, 
but  here  translates  it  sta(j  (Hirsch).  The  common  version  (irj7</  hull)  is  de- 
rived from  the  Targum,  and  is  sufficient  to  convey  the  writer's  meaning  by 
suggesting  the  idea  of  a  wild  animal  rendered  entirely  powerless.  The 
extraordinary  version  given  in  the  Septuagint,  et-orXiov  r,fji,ii^dov,  a  half-cooked 
beet,  owes  its  origin,  no  doubt,  to  some  coincidence  of  form  or  sound  between 
the  obscure  Hebrew  word  and  an  Egyptian  one,  with  which  the  translator 
was  familiar.  The  cognate  form  in  Deuteronomy  is  rendered,  in  the  same 
version,  but  no  doubt  by  a  dilferent  hand,  uivya.  The  precise  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  phrase  appears  to  be,  like  an  oryx  of  net,  or  a  net  oryx,  i.e.  an 
ensnared  one  ;  but  the  sense  may  be  best  expressed  in  English  by  supply- 
ing the  local  preposition  {in  a  net).  Knobel  supposes  a  particular  allusion 
to  the  faintness  produced  by  hunger,  and  refers  to  several  j^assagos  in 
Jeremiah,  especially  to  Lam.  ii.  10,  which  is  no  doubt  imitated  from  the 
one  before  us. — The  true  cause  of  their  lying  thus  is  given  in  the  last 
clause.  Filled  {i.e.  drunk,  as  Ewald  explains  it)  icith  the  wrath  of  Jehovah, 
the  rebuke  ff  thy  dod.  In  Hebrew  usage  n^yj  approadu'S  to  the  strong 
sense  curse,  and  is  so  translated  by  Gesenius.  The  expression  thy  (Hod  is 
emphatic,  and  suggests  that  her  suflerings  pn^cceded  from  the  alienation  of 
her  own  divine  protector.  This  verso  is  incorrectly  applied  by  Vitringa  to 
the  siege  of  the  ancient  Jerusalem,  whereas  it  is  a  figurative  representation 
of  the  helplessness  of  Zion  or  the  Church,  when  partially  forsaken  for  a 
time  by  her  oflended  Head. 

21.  Therefore  pray  hear  this,  thou  suffering  one,  and  drunken,   hut   not 


Ver.  22,  23.]  ISAIAH  LI.  271 

Willi  wine.  The  antithesis  in  the  hist  chxuse  is  to  he  completed  from  the 
context.  Not  with  wine,  but  with  the  wrath  of  God,  which  had  already 
been  described  as  a  cup  of  reeliufj  or  intoxication.  The  same  negative 
expression  is  employed  in  chap.  xxix.  9.  The  Targnm  supplies  frotn 
distresn.  Kimchi  inserts  the  urath  of  God.  Jarchi  supposes  an  ellipsis  of 
something  else  (inx  "I3"I),  and  thus  accounts  for  the  construct  form  of  the 
participle.  But  the  Michlal  Jophi  explains  it  more  correct!}'  as  an  instance 
of  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  construct  for  the  absolute,  in  cases  where  a  very 
intimate  relation  is  to  be  expressed.  Vitringa  carries  out  his  favourite 
method  of  interpretation,  by  explaining  this  verse  as  addressed  specifically 
to  the  ancient  church,  when  recovering  from  the  persecutions  of  Antiochus 
Epiphaues  :  a  limitation  which  might  just  as  well  be  made  in  reference  to 
any  of  the  general  encouragements  of  true  believers  which  the  word  of  God 
contains. 

22.  Thus  saith  thy  Lord,  Jehovah,  and  thy  God — he  will  defend  (or 
avenye)  his  people — Behold,  I  have  taken  from  thy  hand  the  cup  of  recliny  (or 
intoxication)  the  bowl  of  the  cup  of  my  fury  ;  thou  shalt  not  add  {continue  or 
repeat)  to  drink  it  any  more  (or  ayain).  Even  Knobel  is  conipoUed  to 
admit  that  the  writer  has  reference  less  to  the  place  than  to  the  people  of 
Jerusalem,  and  even  to  this  only  as  the  representative  of  the  entire  nation ; 
a  concession  which  goes  far  to  confirm  the  explanation  of  the  "  Zion  "  of 
these  prophecies  which  has  been  already  given. — It  is  usual  to  explain 
l^y  3n*  as  a  relative  clause  (who  pleads  the  cause  of  his  people);  but  it  is 
simpler,  and  at  the  same  time  more  in  accordance  with  the  genius  of  the 
language,  to  regard  it  as  a  brief  but  complete  parenthetical  proposition. 
The  same  chai'acter  is  often  ascribed  elsewhere  to  Jehovah.  Sec  chaps, 
i.  17,  xxxiv.  8,  xU.  11,  xlix.  25.) — As  the  cup  was  the  cup  of  God's  wrath, 
not  of  man's,  so  God  himself  is  represented  as  withdrawing  it  from  the 
sufferer's  lips,  when  its  purpose  is  accomplished. 

23.  And  put  it  into  the  hand  of  those  that  afflicted  thee,  that  said  to  thy 
soul,  Low  dotvn  and  we  will  (or  that  we  may)  pass  over ;  and  thou  didst  lay 
thy  hack  as  the  yround,  and  as  the  street  for  the  passenyers.  Ewald  and 
Umbreit  agree  with  Seeker  and  Lowth  in  reading  '^!'31D  thy  oppressors,  as  in 
chap.  xlix.  2G,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  the  ancient  versions,  which 
would  be  wholly  insufficient  if  the  fact  were  so,  and  Kocher  has  clearly 
shewn  that  it  is  not.  The  common  reading  is  confirmed,  moreover,  by  the 
use  of  nJin  in  Lam.  i.  12. — To  thy  soul  is  explained  by  Gesenius  and 
others  as  a  mere  periphrasis  for  to  thee.  Vitringa  supposes  the  expression 
to  be  used  because  the  body  could  not  be  bowed  down  in  the  manner 
here  described  without  a  previous  bowing  of  the  mind.  But  the  true 
explanation  is  no  doubt  that  given  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  exposition 
of  Ps.  iii.  3 ;  viz.,  that  this  form  of  speech  always  implies  a  strong 
and  commonly  a  painful  affection  of  the  mind  in  the  object  of  address. 
Who  said  to  thy  soul  is  then  equivalent  to  saying,  uho  distressed  thy 
soul  by  sayiiiy.  The  last  clause  is  commonly  explained  as  a  proverbial, 
or  at  least  a  metaphorical  description  of  extreme  humiliation,  although 
history  aflbrds  instances  of  literal  humiliation  in  this  form.  Such  is  the 
treatment  of  Valerian  by  Sapor,  as  described  by  Lactantius  and  Aurelius 
Victor ;  with  which  may  be  compared  the  conduct  of  Sesostris  to  his  royal 
captives,  as  described  by  Diodorus,  and  that  of  Pope  Alexander  III.  to  the 
Emperor  Frederic,  as  recorded  by  the  Italian  historians.  For  Scriptural 
parallels,  see  Joshua  x.  24,  and  Judges  i.  7. — If  we  had  any  right  or 
reason  to  restrict  this  prediction  to  a  single  period  or  event,  the  most 


272  ISAIAII  Lll.  [Vek.  1. 

obvious  would  be  the  humiliation  of  the  Chaldees,  who  are  threatened  with 
the  cup  of  God's  wrath  iu  Jer.  xxv.  20.  Yet  Vitrin^a  sets  this  application 
aside  upon  the  ground  that  Israt-l  drauk  of  the  same  cup  afterwards,  aud 
understands  the  verse  of  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  their  Mncodonian 
oppressors  by  the  valour  of  the  Maccabees.  To  the  obvious  objection  that 
even  this  was  not  a  final  deliverance,  he  ingeniously  replies  that  all  the 
promises  to  Israel  extend  only  to  the  end  of  the  old  dispensation  ;  an 
assumption  which  confounds  the  Jewish  nation  with  the  Isratl  of  God,  the 
church  or  chosen  people,  which  continued  to  exist  under  every  change  of 
dispensation  and  economy,  and,  notwithstanding  all  its  fluctuations  and 
vicissitudes,  shall  ultimately  bo  for  ever  rescued  by  the  same  hand  which 
destroys  its  enemies.  This  is  the  simple  substance  of  the  promise  in  the 
verse  before  us,  which  includes  without  specifically  signifying  all  that  has 
been  thus  represented  as  its  meaning. 


CHAPTEB   Lll. 

However  low  the  natural  Israel  may  sink,  the  true  church  shall  become 
more  glorious  than  ever,  being  freed  from  the  impurities  connected  with 
her  former  state,  ver.  1.  This  is  described  as  a  captivity,  from  which  she 
is  exhorted  to  escape,  ver.  2,  Her  emancipation  is  the  fruit  of  God's 
gratuitous  compassion,  ver.  3.  As  a  nation  she  has  sufiered  long  enough, 
vers.  1,  5.  The  day  is  coming  when  the  Israel  of  God  shall  know  in  whom 
thev  have  believed,  ver.  0.  The  herald  of  the  new  dispensation  is  described 
as  already  visible  upon  the  mountains,  ver.  7.  The  watchmen  of  Ziou 
hail  their  coining  Lord,  ver.  8.  The  very  ruins  of  Jerusalem  are  sum- 
moned to  rejoice,  ver.  9.  The  glorious  change  is  witnessed  by  the  whole 
world,  ver.  10.  The  true  church,  or  Israel  of  God,  is  exhorted  to  come 
out  of  Jewry,  ver.  IL  This  exodus  is  likened  to  the  one  from  Eg}-pt,  but 
described  as  even  more  auspicious,  ver.  12.  Its  great  leader  the  Messiah, 
as  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  must  be  and  is  to  be  exalted,  ver.  13.  And 
this  exaltation  shall  bear  due  proportion  to  the  humiliation  which  preceded 
it,  vers.  14,  15. 

1.  Avakc,  aindc,  put  on  thy  strength,  0  Zion  !  Put  on  thy  garments 
ofhcautg,  0  Jerusatrm,  the  Holy  City  !  For  no  more  shall  there  add  or 
eontinue)  to  come  into  thee  an  uncircumcised  and  unelean  {person).  Tlio 
encour.tging  assurances  of  the  foregoing  context  are  now  followed  by  a  sum- 
mons siniihir  to  that  in  chap.  li.  17,  but  in  form  approaching  nearer  to  the 
apostrophe  in  chap.  li.  I). — Yitringa  objects  to  the  version  awahe,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  not  a  state  of  sleep  from  which  she  was  to  rouse  herself. 
This  is  true  st)  far  as  literal  slumber  is  concerned  ;  but  sleep  is  one  of  the 
most  natural  and  common  figures  for  a  despondent  lethargy.  The  essential 
idea  is,  no  doubt,  that  of  rousing  or  arising,  which  Gesenitis  and  the  later 
Germans  express  by  an  interjection  meaning  vp  {auf.  nuf'.).  The  same 
writers  give  to  ^y,  in  this  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  factitious  sense  of 
beauty,  glory,  simply  on  account  of  the  parallelism.  This  is  a  gratuitous 
weakening  of  the  sense  ;  for  beauty  and  heauty  is  certainly  much  less  than 
heaithi  and  strength.  To  ])ut  on  strength  is  a  perfectly  inttlligible  figure 
for  resuming  strength  or  taking  courage,  and  is  therefore  entirely  appro- 
priate in  this  connection  ;  while  the  other  meaning  is  not  only  less  agreeable 
to  usage,  but  excluded  by  the  clear  analogy  of  chap.  li.  0,  where  the  sense 
oi  strength  is  universally  admitted.     It  might  be  objected  that  the  sense  is 


Ver.  2.  J  ISA  FAIT  LIT.  278 

there  determined  by  the  use  of  the  word  arm,  if  the  meaning  slretu/th  were 
a  rare  and  doubtful  one ;  but  since  it  is  confessedly  the  usual  and  proper 
one,  the  case  referred  to  merely  confirms  the  strict  interpretation,  which  is 
here  retained  by  Ewald  (Macht). — That  the  cit}'  is  here  addressed  only  as 
a  symbol  of  the  nation,  is  certain  from  the  next  verse ;  so  that  Hitzig  is 
compelled  to  assume  two  different  objects  of  address,  in  utter  violation  of 
aualogj'  and  taste. — Beautiful  gctrmoits  is  by  most  interpreters  regarded  as 
a  general  expression  meaning  fine  clothes  or  holiday  dresses  ;  but  some 
suppose  a  special  allusion  to  a  widow's  weeds  (2  Sam.  xiv.  2),  or  to  prison- 
garments  (2  Kings  XXV.  29).  It  is  a  bold  but  not  unnatural  idea  of  Knobel, 
that  the  Prophet  here  resumes  the  metaphor  of  chap,  xlix.  18,  where  Zion's 
children  are  compared  to  bridal  ornaments. — The  Hoh/  City,  literally  city 
r>f  holitiess,  an  epithet  before  applied  to  Zion  (chap,  xlviii.  2),  and  denoting 
her  peculiar  consecration  and  that  of  her  people,  to  the  service  of  Jehovah. 
(Compare  Dan.  viii.  24.)  Henceforth  the  name  is  to  be  more  appropriate 
than  ever,  for  the  reason  given  in  the  last  clause.  The  meaning  of  *1''P1\ 
when  followed  by  the  future,  is  precisely  equivalent  to  the  more  usual  con- 
struction with  the  infinitive,  of  which  we  have  an  instance  in  chap.  li.  22. — 
lJnci)-aoncise(l  is  an  expression  borrowed  from  the  ritual  law,  and  signifying 
unclean.  That  it  is  not  here  used  in  its  strict  sense,  is  intimated  by  the 
addition  of  the  general  teiTu  i^Pp.  The  restriction  of  these  epithets  to  the 
]5abylonians  is  purely  arbitrary,  and  intended  to  meet  the  objection  that 
Jerusalem  was  not  free  from  heathen  intrusion  after  the  exile.  The  same 
motive  leads  Yitringa  to  explain  the  promise  as  addressed  to  the  Jewish 
Church,  after  its  deliverance  from  the  insults  and  oppressions  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  The  Jews  refer  it  to  a  future  period,  and  the  Germans  easily 
dispose  of  it  as  a  visionary  expectation  which  was  never  reaUsed.  Thus 
Beck  expluhis  it  as  a  prophecy  that  all  mankind  should  be  converted  to 
Judaism,  which  is  a  virtual  concession  of  the  truth  of  the  interpretation 
above  given.  The  question  is  not  materially  varied  by  substituting  come 
against  for  come  into.  The  true  solution  is  the  one  above  suggested, 
namely,  that  the  words  contain  a  general  promise  of  exemption  from  the 
contaminating  presence  of  the  impure  and  unworthy,  as  a  part  of  the 
blessedness  and  glory  promised  to  God's  people,  as  the  end  and  solace  of 
their  various  trials. 

2.  Shake  thyself  from  the  dust,  arise,  sit,  0  Jerusalem  !  loose  the  hands  of 
thy  neck,  0  captive  dauyhter  Zion  (or  if  Zion) !  The  dust  from  which  she 
is  to  free  herself  by  shaking  it  off,  is  either  that  in  which  she  had  been  sit- 
ting as  a  mourner  (chap,  iii,  26,  xlvii.  1  ;  Job  ii.  13),  or  that  which,  in 
token  of  her  grief,  she  had  sprinkled  on  her  head  (Job  ii.  12). — Koppe  and 
Hitzig  make  ''^y*  a  noun,  meaning  captirily  or  captives  collectively,  like  the 
corresponding  feminine  i^'?^'  in  the  other  clause.  Rosenmiiller's  objection, 
that  ^?^'  would  in  that  case  have  a  conjunctive  accent,  is  declared  by 
Hitzig  to  be  groundless,  and  is  certainly  inconclusive.  A  more  serious 
objection  is  the  one  made  by  Gesenius,  that  ^ip'  is  always  masculine,  and 
would  not  therefore  agree  with  the  feminine  verb  ''P-lp.  Hitzig" s  reply,  that 
"'?P',  as  a  collective,  may  be  here  used  as  a  feminine,  is  not  only  wholly 
gratuitous  but  utterly  precluded  by  the  existence  of  a  distinct  feminine 
form  and  its  occurrence  in  this  very  sentence.  Because  fominines  have 
sometimes  a  collective  sense,  it  docs  not  follow  that  a  mascuhne,  when  used 
collectively,  becomes  a  feminine,  least  of  all  when  a  feminine  form  exists 
already.     Among  the  writers  who  explain  it  as  a  verb,  there  is  a  difi'erence 

VOL.  II.  s 


274  ISAIAH  LII.  [Veb.  8,  4. 

of  judgmeut  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  exhortation,  sit  I  The  com- 
mon English  version,  sit  down,  till  cxplaiued,  suggests  an  idea  dirccth 
opposite  to  that  intended.  Gesenius,  on  the  contran.-,  makes  it  mean  .s(/ 
up,  in  op{)osition  to  a  previous  recumbent  posture.  To  this  it  may  bo 
objected,  that  the  verb  is  elsewhere  ab.solutely  used  in  the  sense  oi  sitting 
duwii,  especially  in  reference  to  silting  on  the  ground  as  a  sign  of  grief; 
and  also,  that  the  other  verb  does  not  merely  quaUfy  tliis,  but  expresses  a 
distinct  idea,  not  merely  that  of  rising,  but  that  of  standing  up,  which  is  in- 
consistent with  an  exhortation  to  sit  up,  immediately  ensuing.  Ewiild,  Um- 
breit,  and  Knobel,  therefore  agree  with  Vitringa  and  Lowih  in  adopting 
the  interpretation  of  the  Targum,  sit  upon  thy  throne,  from  which  she  is 
supposed  to  have  been  previously  cast  down. — The  textual  reading  inriSJ^n 
may  be  either  a  preterite  or  an  imperative.  In  the  former  case,  the  Hithpaol 
must  have  a  passive  sense,  the  hands  of  thy  neck  are  loosed,  or  have  loosid 
themselves.  In  the  other  case,  the  words  may  be  considered  as  addressed 
to  the  bands  themselves  (he  loosed),  which  is  hardly  compatible,  however, 
with  the  use  of  the  second  person  in  thy  neck  ;  or  the  object  of  address 
may  be  the  captives,  which  is  equally  at  varijiuce  with  the  following  singular, 
captive  dauijUter  of  Zion.  The  marginal  reading  'HJ^Sr^n  preserves  both 
the  parallelism  and  the  syntax,  and  is  therefore  regarded  as  the  true  text 
by  Ewald  and  Knobel  with  the  older  writers.  The  latter,  followed  by 
llosenmiiller,  suppose  an  ellipsis  of  the  preposition //owj.  Thus  the  Eng- 
lish Version  :  loose  thyself  from  the  lands  of  Ihy  neck.  Geseuius  and  Ewald 
make  hands  the  object  of  the  verb,  which  they  explain,  not  as  a  strict  re- 
flexive, but  a  modification  of  it,  corresponding  to  the  middle  voice  in  Greek. 
Loose  for  thyself  the  hands  of  thy  neck. — On  the  diflVrcnt  constructions  of 
the  phrase  P'V'n?  see  under  chap.  i.  8. — As  a  whole,  the  verse  is  a  poetical 
description  of  the  Iiberati(>n  of  a  female  captive  from  degrading  servitude, 
designed  to  represent  the  complete  euiancipation  of  the  church  from  tyranny 
and  persecution. 

3.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah,  Ye  were  sold  for  nought,  and  not  for  money 
shall  ye  he  redeemed.  These  words  are  apparently  designed  to  remove  two 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  Israel's  deliverance,  a  physical  and  a  moral  one. 
The  essential  meaning  is,  that  it  might  be  eflected  rightly  and  easily.  As 
Jehovah  had  received  no  price  for  them,  he  was  under  no  obligations  to 
renounce  his  right  to  them  ;  and  as  nothing  had  been  gained  by  their  re- 
jection, so  nothing  would  be  lost  by  their  recover}*.  The  only  obscurity 
arises  from  the  singular  nature  of  the  figure  mider  which  the  truth  is  her. 
presented,  by  the  transfer  of  expressions  borrowed  from  the  commercial 
intercourse  of  men  to  the  free  action  of  the  divine  sovereignty.  The  vei"se, 
as  explained  above,  agi-ees  exactly  with  the  terms  of  Ps.  xliv.  18,  notwith- 
standing Ilengstenberg's  denial  (Commentary,  in  Inc.).  The  reference 
to  the  blood  of  Christ  as  infinitely  more  precious  than  silver  and  gold, 
would  here  be  wholly  out  of  place,  where  the  thing  asserted  is  that  they 
shall  bo  redeemed  as  they  were  sold,  viz.,  without  any  price  at  all,  not 
merely  without  silver  and  gold.  Tbis  mi-sconccption  has  ari.scn  from  tho 
use  of  analogous  expressions  in  the  New  Testament  in  application  to  a  fur 
more  important  subject,  the  redemption  of  n)ankind  from  everlasting  ruin. 
The  reflexive  meaning  given  to  D;^'12'?J  jn  the  English  Version  (y  havA  sold 
yourselves),  is  not  sustained  by  usagf,  nor  re(piired  by  the  context,  either 
here  or  iu  Lev.  xxv.  8'J,  17,  where  Gescnius  admits  it.  (See  above,  on 
chap.  1.  1.) 

i.  For  thut  saith  the  Lor.l  Jehovah,  Into  Egypt  utnt  down  v^y  jeoph  at 


Ver.  4.]  ISAIAH  LI  I.  275 

the  first  to  sojourn  there,  and  Assyria  oppressed  them  for  nothing.  The 
interpretation  of  this  verse  and  the  next  has  been  not  a  Hltle  influenced  by 
the  assumption  of  one  or  more  strongly  marked  antitheses.  Thus  some 
writers  take  it  for  granted  that  the  Pro))het  here  intended  to  contrast  the 
Egyptian  and  Assyrian  bondage.  They  accordingly  explain  the  verso  as 
meaning  that  the  first  introduction  of  Israel  into  Egvpt  was  without  any 
evil  design  upon  the  part  of  the  Egyptians,  who  did  not  begin  to  oppress 
them  until  there  arose  a  king  who  knew  not  Joseph  (Exod.  i.  8),  whereas 
the  Assyrian  deportation  of  Israel  was  from  the  beginning  a  high-handed 
act  of  tyranny.  Another  antitheses,  maintained  by  some  in  connection 
with  the  one  already  mentioned,  and  by  others  in  the  place  of  it,  is  that 
between  nJt'N"l3  at  the  first,  and  D?^?  at  the  last.  A  third  hypothesis  sup- 
poses Egypt  and  Assyria  together  to  be  here  contrasted  with  the  Babylonian 
tyranny  described  in  the  next  verse.  But  even  here  there  is  a  question, 
whether  the  comparison  has  reference  merely  to  time,  and  the  Prophet 
means  to  say  that  what  Jehovah  had  done  he  would  do  again  ;  or  whether 
there  is  also  a  designed  antitheses  between  the  former  oppressions  as  less 
aggravated,  and  the  present  one  as  more  so.  ICnobel  appears  to  exclude 
the  supposition  of  a  contrast  altogether,  and  to  understand  the  j^assage  as 
a  chronological  enumeration  of  events,  designed  to  shew  how  much  had 
been  endured  already  as  a  reason  why  they  should  endure  no  more.  (Com- 
pare chap.  xl.  2.)  In  ancient  times  they  were  oppressed  by  the  Egyptians, 
at  a  later  period  by  Assyria,  and  later  still  by  Babylonia,  whose  oppressions 
are  supposed  to  be  described  in  ver.  5,  either  as  already  suffered,  or  as  an 
object  of  prophetic  foresight.  This  is  the  simplest  and  most  natural  inter- 
pretation, and  is  very  strongly  recommended  by  the  difficulty  of  defining  the 
antithesis  intended  on  the  other  supposition.  Of  the  phrase  D?^Il  there 
are  thi-ee  interpretations.  Saadias,  Lowth,  and  Henderson  explain  it  as  a 
particle  of  time,  the  opposite  of  ^JC^•N■^2.  The  objection  to  this  is  the  want 
of  any  other  case  in  which  the  noun  is  thus  applied  to  time,  together  with 
its  frequent  use  to  describe  nonentity  or  nothing.  It  is  no  doubt  true,  as 
Hiiveruick  alleges,  that  the  word  may  as  well  denote  extremity  of  time  as 
of  place  ;  but  even  the  latter  application  is  confined  to  the  plural  in  the 
frequent  formula  )*"ii<  *D2N.  The  argument  derived  from  the  parallelism  is 
of  no  avail ;  because,  as  we  have  seen,  one  of  the  points  at  issue  is  the 
question  whether  n:L"X"l3  stands  opposed  to  DDN3  or  to  nnj?  iu  the  next 
verse.  Most  writers,  therefore,  understand  it  as  meaning  fi^r  nothing  or 
without  cause,  i.  e.  unjustly,  or  as  Kimchi  expresses  it,  yiCD  f)i2.  Knobel, 
however,  makes  it  strictly  synonymous  with  D3n  iu  ver.  3,  and  understands 
the  clause  to  mean  that  the  Assyrians  had  enslaved  Israel  gratuitously,  {.  e. 
without  paying  any  price  for  him,  and  therefore  had  no  right  to  him,  when 
God  chose  to  reclaim  him  ;  which  is  precisely  the  idea  expressed  in  the 
foregoing  verse. — The  explanation  of  Assyria  as  meaning  or  including 
Babylonia,  though  not  without  authority  from  usage,  is  as  unnecessary  hero 
as  in  various  other  places  where  it  has  been  proposed.  (See  vol.  i.  p. 
176.) — The  unsatisfactory  nature  of  exegetical  conclusions  drawn  from 
doubtful  premises  is  strongly  illustrated  by  the  fact,  that  while  Gesenius 
argues  from  this  verse  that  the  writer  must  have  lived  long  after  the 
Assyrian  bondage,  since  he  couples  it  with  that  of  Egypt  as  a  thing  of 
ancient  date,  Haveruick  (Einleitung,  ii.  2,  p.  187)  insists  that  it  must  have 
been  written  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  because  it  contrasts  the  Egyptian  and 
Assyrian  bondage  as  the  first  and  the  last  which  Israel  as  a  nation  had  ex- 
perienced.    The  chief  use  of  such  reasonings  is  to  cancel  one  another. 


276  ISAIAH  LIl.  [Veb.  5. 

Though  wo  may  not  venture  to  rest  the  genuineness  of  these  prophecies  on 
Buch  a  basis,  we  may  cheerfully  accept  the  assurance  thus  afforded  that  the 
arguments  against  it  are  of  no  validity. 

5.  And  now  what  is  there  to  me  here  {what  have  I  here),  sat'th  JehovaJi, 
that  my  people  is  taken  aicatj  for  nothirxj,  its  rulers  howl,  saith  Jehovah,  and 
continually,  all  the  day,  my  name  is  blasphemed  ?  Some  understand  now 
strictly  as  meaning  at  the  jyresrnt  time,  in  opposition  to  the  ancient  times 
when  Israel  suffered  at  the  hands  of  Egypt  and  Assyria,  The  same  anti- 
thesis may  be  obtained  by  giving  now  a  modified  sense  so  as  to  mean  in 
the  present  case,  as  distinguished  from  the  two  already  mentioned.  It  would 
even  be  admissible  to  give  the  71010  its  logical  sense  as  substantially  meaning 
since  thae  things  are  so,  although  such  a  departure  from  the  proper  import 
of  the  word  is  by  no  means  necessary. — The  other  adverb,  here,  admits  of 
no  less  various  explanations.  Hitzig  and  some  older  writers  understand  it 
to  mean  heaven  as  the  customary  residence  of  God.  (1  Kings  viii.  30.) 
Some  suppose  it  to  mean  Babylon,  while  others,  with  a  bolder  departure 
from  the  strict  sense,  understand  it  as  equivalent  to  in  the  present  case, 
viz.,  that  of  the  Babylonian  exile ;  which,  however,  even  if  correct  in  sub- 
stance, is  rather  a  paraphrase  than  a  translation. — With  the  meaning  put 
upon  this  adverb  varies  the  interpretation  of  the  whole  phrase,  tchqt  have  I 
here?  If  here  mean  in  Babylon,  the  sense  would  seem  to  be,  what  else 
have  I  to  do  here  but  to  free  my  people  ?  If  it  mean  in  heaven,  then  the 
question  is,  what  is  there  to  detain  me  here  from  going  to  the  rescue  of  my 
people  ?  If  it  moan  in  the  present  case,  whether  this  be  referred  to  the 
Babylonish  exile  or  more  generally  understood,  the  best  explanation  of  the 
question  is  the  one  proposed  by  Knobel,  What  have  I  gained  in  this  case, 
any  more  than  in  the  others,  since  my  people  are  still  taken  from  me  with- 
out any  compensation  ?  But  Beck  supposes  it  to  mean,  how  much  more 
cause  have  I  to  interfere  in  this  case  than  in  any  of  the  others.  The  con- 
clusion implied,  though  not  expressed,  is  that  in  this,  as  in  the  other  instances 
referred  to,  a  regard  to  his  own  honour,  metaphorically  represented  as  his 
interest,  requires  that  he  should  interpose  for  the  deliverance  of  his  people. 
— The  next  clause  likewise  has  been  very  variously  explained.  The  most 
extraordinary  exposition  is^the  one  preferred  by  Aben  Ezra,  which  gives 

2y^'0  the  same  sense  as  in  Num.  xxi.  27,  and  explains  the  whole  clause 
thus  :  their  poets  howl,  i.  e.  their  songs,  instead  of  being  joyous  have  become 
mere  lamentations.  This  ingenious  notion  is  revived  by  Luzzatto,  who 
refers  in  illustration  to  the  prophecy  of  Amos  (viii.  8),  that  the  songs  of  the 
temple  shall  in  that  day  howl,  or,  as  the  English  Version  phrases  it,  be  bowl- 
ings.    Among  the  vast  majority  of  writers  who  retain  the  common  meaning 

of  the  word  as  a  derivative  from  ^?r"'?,  to  rule,  the  question  cbielly  in  dispute 
is  whether  it  denotes  the  native  rulers  of  the  Jews  themselves,  as  in  chap, 
xxviii.  1 4,  or  their  foreign  oppressors,  as  in  chap.  xlix.  7.  Yitringa  and  Hitzig, 
who  prefer  the  former  supposition,  understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  the 
chiefs,  who  repn  sent  the  people,  howl  or  wail  in  their  distress.  (Compare 
Exod.  v.  15,  21.)  Knobel  objects  to  this  interpretation,  that  the  context 
requires  a  description  not  of  their  distress  Init  of  its  cause,  and  also  that  the 
Jews  had  no  chiefs  but  the  Babylonians  while  in  exile  ;  which  is  at  once 
historically  false,  because  the  intenial  organization  of  the  people  seems  to 
have  continued  almost  without  change  tbrongh  all  their  revolutions  and 
vicissitudes,  and  wholly  irrelevant  if  true,  because  the  limitation  of  the  pas- 
sage to  the  exile  is  gratuitous  and  therefore  inadmissible.    Most  interpreters, 


Ver.  G.j  ISAIAR  Lll.  277 

however,  seem  disposed  to  understand  VPi^'O  as  meaning  his  foreign  oppres- 
sors, notwithstanding  the  difficulty  then  attending  the  interpretation  of  the 
verb  •1/'v"'n^.  More  contempt  than  it  really  deserves  has  been  expressed  by 
later  writers  for  Jerome's  straightforward  explanation,  they  shall  howl  when 
punished  for  their  tymnny  hereafter.  This  is,  to  say  the  least,  far  better 
than  to  derive  it  from  ?^.n,  or  to  read  •1?<'in.''  with  the  Targum  and  Jarchi, 
Houbigant  and  Lowth,  Michaelis  and  Doderlein,  Dathe  and  Eichhorn. 
The  causative  sense,  expressed  by  Kimchi  and  the  English  Version  [make 
them  to  howl),  is  wholly  unsustained  by  Hebrew  usage.  The  favourite 
interpretation  with  the  latest  writers  is  essentially  the  same  proposed  by 
Kocher,  who  explains  the  Hebrew  verb  as  expressive  of  the  violent  and 
angry  domination  of  the  rulers ;  upon  which  the  moderns  have  improved  by 
making  it  expressive  of  a  joyful  shout,  as  oa&Xi/^w  is  employed  by  itilschylus, 
and  as  Lucan,  speaking  of  the  shout  of  victory,  uses  the  words,  laetis  nlulare 
iriumphis.  This  explanation  is  adopted  by  Gesenius  in  his  Lexicon,  although 
explicitly  rejected  in  his  Commentary,  as  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  usage, 
— The  only  difficulty  in  the  last  clause  has  relation  to  the  form  of  the  word 
|'N3p,  which  Jarchi  explains  as  a  Hithpael  passive,  and  Kimchi  as  a  mix- 
ture of  the  Hithpael  and  Pual. — The  form  of  expression  in  this  last  clause 
is  copied  by  Ezekiel  (xxxvi.  20,  23),  but  applied  to  a  dilferent  subject ; 
and  from  that  place,  rather  than  the  one  before  us,  the  Apostle  quotes  in 
Romans  ii.  24. 

0.  There/ore  (because  my  name  is  thus  blasphemed)  my  people  shall 
knoio  my  name;  therefore  in  that  day  (shall  they  know)  that  I  am  he  that 
said,  Behold  me  !  The  exact  sense  of  the  last  words  according  to  this 
construction  is,  "  I  am  he  that  spake  (or  promised)  a  Behold  me !  "  This  is 
the  sense  given  by  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Knobel,  who  understand  the  claute 
as  meaning  that  in  that  day  (when  the  promise  is  fulfilled)  it  shall  be  known 
that  he  who  promised  to  be  with  them,  and  deliver  them,  was  God  himself. 
Geseuius  gives  a  somewhat  ditlerent  construction,  "they  shall  know  that  I 
who  spoke  to  them  am  present,"  or  in  other  words  "that  I  who  promised  to 
be  present  have  fulfilled  my  promise."  But  this  paraphrastical  interpretation 
of  ^^.3n  is  by  no  means  so  natural  as  that  which  understands  it  as  the  very 
language  of  the  promise  itself.  To  know  the  name  of  God,  is  to  know  his 
nature  so  far  as  it  has  been  revealed  ;  and  in  this  case  more  specifically  it  is 
to  know  that  the  name  blasphemed  among  the  wicked  was  deserving  of  the 
highest  honour.  The  second  therefore  is  admitted  by  all  the  modern  writers 
to  be  pregnant  and  emphatic ;  although  Lowth  esteemed  it  so  unmeaning 
and  superfluous,  that  he  expunged  it  from  the  text  on  the  authority  of  several 
ancient  versions,  which  were  much  more  likely  to  omit  it  inadvertently  than 
all  the  manuscripts  to  introduce  it  without  reason  or  authority.  It  is  also 
commonly  agi-eed  that  ^?  means  that,  and  that  the  verb  shall  know  must  be 
repealed  with  a  difierent  object.  It  might,  however,  be  considered  simpler 
and  more  natural  to  repeat  the  object  with  the  verb,  and  let  the  last  clause 
give  a  reason  for  the  first :  "  therefore  in  that  day  shall  they  know  it  {i.  e. 
know  my  name),  because  I  am  he  that  said.  Behold  me  (or,  Lo  here  I  am) !  " 
The  English  Version  diflers  from  all  the  constructions  which  have  now  been 
stated,  in  explaining  ^?.3n  as  a  mere  reiteration  of  what  goes  before  :  "they 
shall  know  in  that  day  that  I  am  he  that  doth  speak  ;  behold  it  is  I."  But 
according  to  usage,  ^?3n,  especially  when  standing  at  the  end  of  a  clause  or 
sentence,  does  not  merely  reiterate  the  subject  of  a  foregoing  verb,  but  con- 
stitutes a  new  proposition  ;  it  does  not  mean  lo  I,  or  lo  I  am,  but  lo  1  am 


278  ISAIAH  Lll.  [Ykr.  7,  8. 

here,  and  is  therefore  the  common  idiDmatic  Hebrew  answer  to  a  call  by 
name. 

7.  Hoic  timely  cm  the  mountains  are  the  feet  of  one  hrinrjing  ghid  tidings, 
puhlishing  jicace,  bringing  glad  tidingn  of  good,  jnthlinhivg  sulfation,  saying 
to  Zivn,  Thy  God  reignelh.  The  verb  -11X3  means  to  be  suitable,  becoming, 
opportune,  and  though  not  applied  to  time  in  either  of  the  two  cases  wliero 
it  occurs  elsewhere,  evidently  admits  of  such  an  application,  especially  when 
there  is  no  general  usage  to  forbid  it.  It  is  here  recommended  by  the  con- 
text ;  which  is  much  more  coherent  if  we  understand  this  verse  as  intimat- 
ing that  the  help  appears  at  the  very  juncture  when  it  is  most  needed,  than 
if  wo  take  it  as  a  mere  expression  of  delight.  It  is  also  favoured  by  tho 
analogy  of  Nah.  ii.  1,  where  a  similar  connection  is  expressed  by  the  word 
^?.<).  It  is  favoured  lastly  by  the  use  of  tho  Greek  word  upuToi  in  Paul's 
translation  of  the  verse  (Rom.  x.  15),  of  which  wsa  in  our  copies  of  the 
Septuagint  is  probably  a  corruption.  This  Greek  word,  both  from  ety- 
mology and  usage,  most  explicitly  means  tinuh/  or  seasonable,  although 
sometimes  employed  in  the  secondary  sense  of  bcaidiful  (Matt,  xxiii.  27  ; 
Acts  iii.  2),  like  the  Hebrew  -IISJ  (Cant.  i.  10),  decants  in  Latin,  and  be- 
coming in  English.  The  mountains  meant  may  be  the  mountains  round 
Jerusalem,  or  the  word  may  be  more  indefinitely  understood  as  adding  a 
trait  to  the  prophetic  picture. — llitzig  gratuitously  changes  the  form  of  tho 
expression,  by  substituting  foot  and  messengers  for  feet  and  messenger.  Tho 
word  ty'?9  has  no  equivalent  in  English,  and  must  therefore  be  expressed 
by  a  periphrasis,  in  order  to  include  the  two  ideas  of  annunciation,  and  the 
joyful  character  of  that  which  is  announced.  The  sense  is  perfectly  ox- 
pressed  by  the  Greek  vjayyO.i'i^oiJ.ivo; :  but  our  derivatives,  cranj^e/is/n^  and 
evangeliai,  are  technical,  not  pojjular  expressions,  and  would  not  convey  the 
meaning  to  an  ordinary  reader.  The  joyous  nature  of  the  tidings  brought  is 
still  more  definitely  intimated  in  the  next  clause  by  the  addition  of  the  word 
good,  which  is  not  explanatory  but  intensive.  The  peculiar  form  of  the 
original  is  marred  in  some  translations,  by  rendering  the  first  "i»t'?9  ^^  ^  "0"'i 
and  the  second  as  a  verb ;  whereas  in  Hebrew  there  are  two  participles,  both 
repeated.  The  explanation  of  "ii5*5P  as  a  collective  referring  to  the  prophets, 
or  the  messengers  from  iJabylonia  to  Jerusalem,  is  perfectly  gratuitous.  The 
primary-  application  of  the  tenn  is  to  the  Messiah,  but  in  itself  it  is  indefinite; 
and  Paul  is  therefore  chargeable  with  no  misapplication  of  the  words  when 
ho  applies  them  to  tho  preachers  of  the  gospel.  The  contents  of  the  mes* 
sage  are  the  manifestation  of  the  reign  of  God,  the  very  news  which  Christ 
and  his  foreninner  published  when  they  cried  saying,  The  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand. 

8.  The  voice  of  thy  loatchmen !  They  raise  the  voice,  together  will 
they  shorit ;  for  eye  to  eye  shall  they  see  in  Jehovah's  returning  to  Zion. 
Lowth  complains  that  none  of  the  ancient  versions  or  modern  interpreters 
have  cleared  up  the  construction  of  the  first  clause  to  his  satisfictiou,  or 
supplied  the  ellipsis  in  any  way  that  seems  tt)  him  easy  and  natural.  He 
therefore  proposes  to  read  73  for  ^1?  {all  thy  watchnwn  lift  up  their  wire), 
which  he  says  perfectly  rectifies  the  sense  and  the  construction.  It  is  hard 
to  reconcile  with  Lowth's  reputation  for  refined  taste  the  preference  of  this 
prosaic  reading  (tho  only  external  evidence  for  which  is  that  p  stiinds  on  an 
erasure  in  ono  manuscript)  to  the  obvious  assumption  of  a  poetical  apos- 
trophe or  exclamation,  which  has  commended  itself  to  nil  later  writers,  and 
bad  been  before  proposed  by  Vitriiiga.  There  is  no  need  even  of  supplying 
M  heard  with  Knobel,  soun<ls  with  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  or  hark 


Ver.  9.]  ISAIAH  LI  I.  279 

with  the  same  writer  in  his  German  version.  The  exact  translation  is  not 
only  admissible,  hut  more  expressive  than  any  other.  Gesenins  and  De 
Wette,  liy  conncctinrr  Y^Tyi  with  the  word  before  it  {erhehen  die  Stimme 
aUzumal),  not  only  violate  the  accents,  but  are  under  the  necessity  of  sup- 
plying^ and  before  the  next  verb. — This  is  one  of  the  cases  where  it  seems 
most  allowable  to  look  upon  the  preterite  and  future  as  equivalent  to  our 
present ;  but  according  to  the  general  rule  hitherto  adopted,  it  is  best  to 
retain  the  original  ditlerence  of  form,  whenever,  as  in  this  case,  we  can  do 
so  without  injuring  the  sense.  Thus  understood,  the  clause  would  seem  to 
intimate  that  they  should  have 'still  further  cause  to  shout  hereafter;  they 
have  already  raised  the  voice,  and  ere  long  they  shall  all  shout  together. 
Because  the  pri)phets  are  elsewhere  represented  as  watchmen  on  the  walls 
of  Zion  (chap.  Ivi.  10 ;  Jer.  vi.  17  ;  Ezek.  iii.  17,  xxxiii.  2,  7),  most  in- 
terpreters attach  th:it  meaning  to  the  figure  here  ;  but  the  restriction  is  un- 
necessary, since  the  application  of  a  metaphor  to  one  object  does  not 
procludii  its  application  to  another,  and  objectionable,  as  it  mars  the  unity 
and  beauty  of  the  scene  presented,  which  is  simply  that  of  a  messenger  of 
good  news  drawing  near  to  a  walled  town,  whose  watchmen  take  up  and 
repeat  his  tidings  to  the  people  within. — Ewald  strangely  takes  tlie  last 
clause  as  the  words  to  be  uttered  by  the  watchmen,  and  explains  them  to 
mean,  "  How  will  they  see  eye  to  e3'e  !  "  itc.  This  is  far  less  natural 
than  the  usual  construction,  which  regards  the  last  clause  as  the  Prophet's 
explanation  of  the  joy  described  in  the  first. — The  phrase  eye  to  eye,  or,  as 
Hitzig  and  De  Wette  have  it,  eye  in  eye,  occurs  only  here  and  in  Num. 
xiv.  14.  The  sense  put  upon  it  in  the  Targum  and  adopted  by  Gesenius 
(with  their  eyes),  though  not  erroneous,  is  inadequate.  According  to 
Vitringa,  it  denotes  with  both  eyes,  i.  e.  not  imperfectly  or  dimly,  but  dis- 
tinct'y ;  and  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  Symmachus  (o^yaX/iof  a^wc). 
The  same  essential  meaning  is  attached  to  the  expression  by  Ewald,  but 
with  a  distinct  intimafiou  of  local  proximity,  the  phrase  being  properly  de- 
scriptive of  two  persons  so  near  as  to  look  into  each  other's  eyes.  The 
phrases /ace  to  face  (Exod.  xxxiii.  11)  and  mouth  to  mouth  (Num.  xii.  8) 
are  kindred  and  analogous,  but  not  identical  with  that  befoi*e  us. — The 
verb  -l^'T  may  be  construed  cither  with  "n."?^*  or  with  an  ind-^finite  subject, 
ihcy  (i.  e.  the  people  of  Jerusalem  or  men  in  general)  shall  see. — Rosen- 
miiller  explains  ?  before  21w'  as  the  connective  which  the  verb  HNl  takes 
after  it  when  it  means  to  seo  with  pleasure,  or  to  gize  at  with  delight.  The 
same  construction  seems  to  be  implied  in  Ewald's  paraphrase  of  "1^57^  (sich 
weiden);  but  it  seems  much  simpler  to  construe  the  verb  absolutely  or 
without  an  object  expressed  (they  shall  see,  i.  c.  look),  and  to  make  the  3 
a  particle  of  time,  as  it  usually  is  when  prefixed  to  the  infinitive. — The 
transitive  meaning  ascribed  to  211,*'  in  this  and  many  other  places  has  been 
clearly  shewn  by  Hengstenberg  (Pentateuch,  i.  pp.  104-lOG)  to  have  no 
foundation  either  in  etymology  or  usage,  and  to  be  probably  inadmissible 
even  in  the  frequent  combination  TWIZ'  3"IL",  much  more  in  cases  like  the 
present,  where  the  proper  sense  is  not  only  appropriate  but  required  by  the 
context,  and  the  analogy  of  other  places,  in  which  the  reconciliation  between 
God  and  his  people  is  repn.'sented  as  a  return  after  a  long  absence.  (See 
above,  on  chap.  xl.  11.) — The  direct  construction  of  the  verb  of  motion  with 
the  noun  of  place  is  a  Hebrew  idiom  of  constant  occurrence  ;  so  that  it  is 
not  necessary  even  to  suppose  an  ellipsis  of  the  preposition. 

9.  Burst  forth,  shout  tofjether,  ruins  of  Jerusalem  !     For  Jehovah   hath 
comforted  his  people,  hath  redeemed  Jenis'ilem.     The  phrase  i^P  nV3,  to 


280  ISAIAH  Lll.  [Veb.  10,  11. 

burst  forth  into  shouting,  is  a  favourite  expression  with  Isaiah  (see  above, 
chap.  xiv.  7,  xliv.  23,  xlix.  18,  and  below,  chap.  liv.  1,  Iv.  12)  ;  but  iu 
this  case  the  quaUf^'ing  noun  is  changed  for  its  verbal  root ;  a  combination 
which  occurs  elsewhere  only  iu  Ps.  xcviii.  4.  As  nvs  is  never  used  in  any 
other  connection,  and  therefore  denotes  only  this  one  kind  of  bursting,  it 
may  be  considered  as  involving  the  idea  of  the  whole  phrase,  and  is  so 
translated  in  the  English  Version  (Itreak  forth  into  joy),  while  Gesenius 
gives  the  same  sense  to  the  two  words,  and  translates  the  phrase  exactly 
like  the  usual  one,  np  PIVS. — Toycllter  may  either  mean  all  of  you,  or  at 
the  same  time  with  the  watchmen,  mentioned  in  ver.  8.  llit/ig  even  goes 
60  far  as  to  say  that  the  ruins  are  here  called  upon  to  imitate  the  watch- 
men. Knobel  adds  that  the  ruins  had  particular  occasion  to  rejoice,  be- 
cause they  were  to  be  transformed  into  a  splendid  city  (chap.  xHv.  2G). 
Such  appeals  to  inanimate  objects  are  of  frequent  occurrence  in  Isaiah  (see 
above,  chaps,  xliv.  23,  xlix.  13,  and  below,  chap.  Iv.  12). — The  translation 
of  the  verbs  in  the  last  clause  as  presents  is  unnecessary  and  enfeebling,  as 
it  takes  away  the  strong  assurance  always  conveyed  by  the  jjra  leritum  pru- 
pheticum.     See  above,  on  chap.  xlix.  13. 

10.  Ji'Jiovah  hath  hared  his  holy  arm  to  the  eyes  of  oil  the  nations,  and  all 
the  ends  of  the  earth  have  seen  the  salvation  of  our  God.  The  allusion  in  the 
first  clause  is  to  the  ancient  militar)'  practice  of  going  into  battle  with  the 
right  arm  and  shoulder  bare.  Thus  Porus  is  described  by  Arrian  as  h'-^iov 
(a/jLOii  t^uv  yv/julv  iv  TJj  ft^u^ri ;  Diana  by  Silius  Italicus,  eu-scilos  avidf 
puffncc  nudata  lacertox ;  Tydeus  by  Statins,  exacitare  huvieros  uudamqur 
laccssere  piigtiam.  The  same  Hebrew  verb  is  used  in  the  same  application 
by  Ezekiel  (iv.  7).  The  baring  of  the  arm  may  either  be  mentioned  as  a 
preparation  for  the  conflict,  or  the  act  of  stretching  it  forth  may  be  included, 
as  llosenmiiller  and  Gesenius  suppose.  The  bare  arm  is  here  in  contrast 
cither  with  the  long  sleeves  of  the  female  dress,  or  with  the  indolent  inser- 
tion of  the  hand  in  the  bosom  (Ps.  Ixxiv.  11).  The  exertion  of  God's 
power  is  elsewhere  expressed  by  the  kindred  figure  of  a  groat  hand  (Exod. 
xiv.  30),  a  strong  hand  (Ezek.  xx.  31),  or  a  hand  stretched  out  (Isa.  ix.  11). 
The  act  here  described  is  the  same  that  is  described  in  chap.  li.  0.  The 
comparison  of  Jehovah  to  a  warrior  occurs  above,  in  chap.  xlii.  13.  Jeho- 
vah's arm  is  here  described  as  holy,  because,  as  Knobel  thinks,  his  holiness 
or  justice  is  exercised  in  punishing  the  wicked  ;  but  the  word  is  rather  to 
be  taken  in  its  wide  sense,  as  denoting  the  divine  perfection,  or  whatever 
distinguishes  between  God  and  man,  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  his 
power,  as  that  by  which  his  deity  is  most  frequently  and  dearly  manifested 
to  his  creatures.  The  sense  of  sanctifying,  /'.  e.  glorifying  arm,  which 
Rosenmiiller  suggests  as  possible,  is  much  less  natural  and  scarcely  recon- 
cilable with  the  expression.  In  this  clause  Ewald  has  retained  the  strict 
translation  of  the  preterite  instead'  of  the  enfeebling  present  form  preferred 
by  most  of  the  late  writers.  In  the  last  clause  he  adopts  the  subjunctive 
form,  so  that  all  nations  see,  which  is  substantially  correct,  as  -IX^)  intro- 
duces the  effect  or  consequence  of  the  action  described  in  the  foregoing 
clause.  Compare  this  clause  with  chaps,  iviii.  8,  xxxiii.  18,  and  Ps. 
xcviii.  8,  where  it  is  repeated  word  for  word.  Another  coincidence  between 
this  ])assage  of  Isaiah  and  that  Psalm,  has  been  already  pointed  out  in  ex- 
pounding the  foregoing  verse. 

11.  Away',  auay !  ijo  out  from  thnce'.  the  unclfan  touch  not!  come  cut 
from  the  midst  of  her !  be  clean  (or  cleanse  yourselres)  ye  armour-bearers  of 
Jehovah  !     The  first  word  in  Hebrew  is  a  verb,  and  literally  means  depart ; 


Ver.  11.]  ISA  Li  II  Lll.  281 

but  there  is  something  pecuhurly  expressive  in  Gesenius's  translation  of  it 
by  an  adverb.  The  analogy  of  chap,  xlviii.  20  seems  to  shew  that  the 
Prophet  liad  the  departure  from  Babylon  in  view  ;  but  the  omission  of 
the  name  here,  and  of  any  allusion  to  that  subject  in  the  context,  forbids 
the  restriction  of  ihe  words  any  further  than  the  author  has  himself  restricted 
them.  The  idea  that  this  high-wrought  and  impassioned  composition  has 
reference  merely  to  ihe  literal  migration  of  the  captive  Jews,  says  but  little 
for  the  taste  of  those  who  entertain  it.  The  whole  analogy  of  language  and 
especially  of  poetical  composition  shews  that  Babylon  is  no  more  the  exclu- 
sive object  of  the  writer's  contemplation  than  the  local  Zion  and  the  literal 
Jerusalem  in  many  of  the  places  where  those  names  are  mentioned.  Like 
other  great  historical  events,  particularly  such  as  may  be  looked  upon  as 
critical  conjunctures,  the  deliverance  becomes  a  type,  not  only  to  the  pro- 
phet but  to  the  poet  and  historian,  not  by  any  arbitrary  process,  but  by  a 
spontaneous  association  of  ideas.  As  some  names,  even  in  our  own  day, 
have  acquired  a  generic  meaning,  and  become  descriptive  of  a  whole  class 
of  events,  so  in  the  earliest  authentic  history,  the  Flood,  the  Fall  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah,  the  Exodus,  the  Babylonish  Exile,  are  continually  used  as 
symbols  of  divine  interposition  both  in  wrath  and  mercy.  There  is  no 
inconsistency  whatever,  therefore,  in  admitting  that  the  Prophet  has  the 
exodus  from  Babylon  in  view,  and  ycst  maintaining  that  his  language  has  a 
far  more  extensive  scope.  The  error  of  those  Christian  writers  who  adopt 
this  confined  hypothesis  is  not  so  obvious  in  their  own  interpretations  as  it  is 
in  those  which  have  been  raised  u])on  the  same  base  by  the  German  neolo- 
gists,  who,  not  content  with  this  limitation  of  the  meaning,  sneer  at  the 
contracted  Jewish  spirit  which  the  writer  here  betrays,  by  insisting  on  the 
old  Levitical  distinctions  and  denouncing  all  communion  with  the  Gentiles 
as  pollution.  In  order  to  maintain  this  unworthy  view  of  the  writer's  mean- 
ing, they  explain  the  exhortation  in  the  last  clause  as  recpiiring  ceremonial 
ablutions,  and  adopt  Jarchi's  groundless  and  absurd  interpretation  of  J^Pp  as 
refei-ring  exclusively  to  persons,  with  allusion  to  the  V^^^i^'^.^^  nxp'O  of  Ezra, 
vi.  21.  This  restriction  of  the  terms  is  so  unreasonable  and  unfair,  that 
Ewald  and  Knobel,  though  belonging  to  the  same  school,  both  explain 
N^tp  as  a  neuter  (Unreiiies),  that  which  is  unclean.  It  would  indeed  be 
impossible  to  frame  a  more  general  dehortation  or  dissuasion  from  religious 
and  moral  impurity,  and  thousands  of  intelligent  readers  have  so  understood 
the  words,  \vithout  detecting  in  them  those  "  angstliche  pedautische  Grund- 
satze,"  since  brought  to  light  by  a  mode  of  criticism  which,  even  in  a  mere 
aesthetic  point  of  view,  deserves  to  be  characterised  as  eminently  (inf/stlich 
and  pcdautisch.  The  same  spirit  shews  itself  in  the  exposition  of  the  closing 
veords  of  this  verse  by  the  same  class  of  writers.  Not  content  with  identify- 
ing the  nin;^'?3with  the  t:^P 'b  of  Num.  iv.  15,  1  Chron.  ix.  29,  an 
assumption  not  entirely  devoid  of  probability,  they  make  this  an  address  to 
the  Priests  and  Levites,  the  official  bearers  of  these  vessels,  and  explain  it  as 
implying  a  hope  that  the  sacred  utensils  taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  from  the 
temple  (2  Kings  xxv.  14,  15  ;  Dan.  v.  1),  would  be  restored  by  C\tus,  as 
they  afterwaids  wei'e.  (Ezra  i.  7-11.)  And  this  anticipated  restitution  HT* 
is  the  great  theme  of  the  grand  yet  brilliant  passage  now  before  us,  in  the 
eyes  of  those  very  critics  who  have  gone  to  an  extreme  in  holding  up  Isaiah's 
baldest  prose  as  unmixed  poetry !  They  reject  of  course  the  sense  which 
Rosenm idler,  following  some  older  writers,  puts  upon  the  closing  words  as 
meaning  the  armour-bearers  of  Jehovah.  This  would  not  be  Jewish  ani 
Levitical  enough  to  serve  their  purpose  of  really  degrading  what  they  atiect 


*^^2  ISA  nil  III.  [Ver.  12. 

to  iu:i<,'nify  "  with  faiut  praise."  Yet  this  sense  is  not  only  in  the  highest 
degree  suitable  to  the  idea  of  a  solemn  march,  hut  strongly  recommended  by 
the  fact  that  D'??  K^'J  in  historical  prose  is  the  appropriated  title  of  an 
araiour-bearer.  (See  1  Sam.  xiv.  1,  G,  7  ;  xvi.  21.)  At  the  same  lime  the 
mention  of  the  sacred  vessels  would  scarcely  be  omitted  in  the  description 
of  this  new  e.xodus.  lioth  explanations-may  bo  blended  without  any  viola- 
tion of  usage,  and  with  great  advantage  to  the  beauty  of  the  passage,  by 
supposing  an  allusion  to  the  mixture  of  the  martial  nndthe  sacerdotal  in  the 
whole  organisation  of  the  host  of  Israel  during  the  journey  through  the 
wilderness.  Not  even  in  the  Crusades  were  the  priest  and  the  soldier 
l)rought  so  near  together,  and  so  mingled,  not  to  say  identified,  as*  in  the 
long  march  of  the  chosen  people  from  tlie  Red  Sea  to  the  Jordan.  I5y 
applying  this  key  to  the  case  before  us,  we  obtain  the  grand  though  blended 
image  of  a  march  and  a  procession,  an  army  and  a  church,  a  "sacramental 
host"  bearing  the  sacred  vessels,  not  as  Priests  and  Levites  merely,  but  as  the 
armniir-benrcrs  of  Jclionih,  the  weapons  of  whose  warfare,  though  not  carnal, 
are  mighty  to  the  pulling  down  of  strong  holds  (2  Cor.  x.  4).  With 
this  comprehensive  exposition  of  the  clause,  agrees  the  clear  and  settled 
usage  of  the  word  Dv3  in  the  wide  sense  of  implfmetils,  including  weapons 
on  the  one  hand,  and  vessels  on  the  other.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  272.)— The 
application  of  the  tenns  of  this  verse  by  John  to  the  spiritual  Jiabylon 
(Rev.  xviii.  4),  so  far  from  standing  in  the  way  of  the  enlarged  interpreta- 
tion above  given,  really  confirms  it  by  shewiiig  that  the  langunge  of  the 
prophecy  is  suited  to  express  far  more  than  the  literal  exodus  of  Israel 
from  Rabylon. 

12.  For  not  in  Jiatte  shall  ye  go  out,  ami  in  jUijht  ye  shall  not  drpart  ; 
for  (juiivj  hefore  you  (is)  Jehovah,  and  bringing  up  your  rear  the  Gml  of 
Israel.  This  verso  is  crowded  with  allusions  to  the  earlier  history  of 
Israel,  some  of  which  consist  in  the  adaptation  of  expressions  with  which 
the  Hebrew  reader  was  familiar,  but  which  must  of  course  be  lost  in  a 
translation.  'J'hus  the  hasty  departure  out  of  Egvpt  is  not  only  recorded  as 
a  fact  in  the  Mosaic  history  (Exod.  xi.  1  ;  xii.  83,' 89).  but  designated  bv  the 
very  term  here  used  ptsn  (Kxod.  xii.  11  ;  Dent.  xvi.  8),  meaning  terrified 
and  sudden  flight.  So  also  "iVn  and  ^Ipxp  are  military  U-rms  familiar  to  the 
readers  of  the  ancient  books.  (See  Num.  x.  2')  ;  Josh.  vi.  9.  13.)  There 
is  likewise  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  cloudv  pillar  g(»ing  sometimes  before, 
and  sometimes  behind  the  host  (Exod.  xiv.  "l9,  20),  and  possibly  to  Moses' 
poetical  descrii)tion  of  Jehovah  as  encompassing  Israel  with  his  protecticm 
(Deut.  xxxii.  10).  Thesc!  minute  resemblances  are  rendered  still  more  strik- 
ing by  the  distinction  which  the  Prophet  makes  between  the  two  events. 
The  former  exodus  was  hurried  and  disorderly  ;  the  one  here  promised  shall 
be  solemn  and  deliberate.  How  fiir  the  exquisite  poetical  beauty  of  the 
passage  is  appreciated  by  some  modern  critics,  may  be  gathered  from  the 
fact  that  Rcrseiiniuiler  quotes  without  dis.sent  the  ridiculous  remark  of 
Schuster,  that  the  verso  has  reference  to  the  dangers  of  the  desert  between 
liabylonia  and  Judea  (Ezra  viii.  22,  31),  and  the  still  more  curious  fact  that 
Knobel  undiT.stand.s  it  as  assigning  a  reason  why  they  need  not  neglect 
their  Levitical  ablutions  before  setting  out ;  while  Ilit/ig  infers  from  this 
last  verse  that  the  purification  enjoined  in  the  one  before  it  was  "  Wtww 
Zcitrauhendes,"  or  something  that  required  lime  for  its  performance. 
Such  a-sllwlics,  if  applied  to  any  of  the  master-works  of  classical  genius, 
vroold  be  laughed  to  scorn  ;  but  even  the  transcendent  merit  of  the  passage 


Yer.  13.]  JSAIAII  I.II.  283 

now  before  us,  simply  considered  txs  a  piece  of  composition,  cannot  wash 
out  the  offensive  stain  of  JuJaismtis,  or  enable  certain  critics  to  forget  or 
even  to  forgive  its  being  Scripture.  The  true  connection  of  the  verse  with 
that  before  it  must  be  obvious  to  every  unsophisticated  reader.  The  /or, 
as  in  many  otber  cases,  has  relation  to  an  intermediate  thought  which  may 
be  Ciisily  supplied  though  not  expressed.  Or  rather,  it  has  reference  to  the 
promise  implied  in  the  preceding  exhortation,  of  protection  and  security. 
To  many  thousands  both  of  learned  and  unlearned  readers,  this  connection 
has  been  obvious  for  ages  ;  whereas  not  more  than  two  or  three,  we 
may  \entm-o  to  believe,  ever  dreamed  that  this  magnificent  description  of 
Jehovah's  presence  with  his  people  was  intended  to  assure  the  Jewish 
exiles  that  before  leaving  Babylon  they  would  have  time  enough  to  wash 
themselves  at  leisure  ! — From  this  verse,  taken  in  connection  with  the  one 
before  it,  we  may  derive  a  confirmation  of  our  previous  conclusions,  first, 
that  the  image  there  presented  is  a  military  no  less  than  a  priestly  one  ; 
and  secondly,  that  this  whole  passage  has  a  wider  scope  and  higher  theme 
than  the  deliverance  from  Babylon,  because  the  latter  is  no  more  vividly 
exhibited  to  view  than  the  deliverance  from  Egypt ;  and  if  this  is  a  mere 
emblem,  so  may  that  be,  nay  it  must  be,  when  we  add  to  the  considera- 
tion just  presented,  the  result  of  the  inductive  process  hitherto  pursued  in 
the  interpretation  of  these  prophecies,  viz.  that  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
from  exile  does  not  constitute  the  theme  of  the  predictions,  but  is  simply, 
one  remarkable  historico-prophetical  example  which  the  Prophet  cites  in 
illustration  of  his  general  teachings  as  to  the  principle  and  mode  of  the 
divine  administration,  and  his  special  predictions  of  a  great  and  glorious 
change  to  be  connected  with  the  abrogation  of  the  old  economy. 

13.  Behold,  my  servant  shall  do  wisely  (and  as  a  necessary  consequence) 
shall  rise  and  be  exalted  and  high  exceedingly.  The  parenthesis  introduced 
to  shew  the  true  relation  of  the  clauses,  serves  at  the  same  time  to  pre- 
clude the  necessity-  of  giving  ?'3y?  the  doubtful  and  secondary  sense  of 
prospering,  as  most  modern  writers  do.  The  objection  to  this  interpreta- 
tion is  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  Pl^  and  i^i?^V,  which  it  is  the  fashion 
now  to  render  victory,  salvation,  or  the  like.  The  parallel  expressions  iu 
the  present  case  are  not  synonymous  but  simply  correlative,  the  mutual 
relation  being  that  of  cause  and  effect.  He  shall  be  exalted,  because  he 
shall  act  wise'y  in  the  highest  sense,  /.  e.  shall  use  the  best  means  for  the 
attainment  of  the  highest  end.  This  kind  of  wisdom  involves  prosperity, 
not  merely  as  a  possible  result,  but  as  a  necessary  consequence.  We  have 
no  right,  however,  to  substitute  the  one  for  the  other,  or  to  merge  the 
primary  idea  in  its  derivative.  Hengstenberg  undertakes  to  blend  both 
senses  by  translating  the  verb  he  shall  ride  well,  i.  e.  both  wisely  and  suc- 
cessfully. But  to  this  there  are  two  olijections  :  first,  that  it  introduces 
an  idea  (that  of  ruling)  which  is  not  expressed  at  all  in  the  original ;  and 
then,  that  it  confounds  two  things  which  in  the  original  are  kept  distinct, 
the  antecedent  and  the  consequent,  wisdom  and  prosperity.  The  latter 
has  the  less  claim  to  be  forced  into  the  first  clause,  because  in  the  last  it 
is  so  fully  and  strongly  expressed,  by  combining,  as  Hengstenberg  himself  well 
says,  all  the  Hebrew  verbs  that  denote  exaltation,  and  then  adding  the  inten- 
sive adverb.  The  version  of  the  Septuagint  [avvrisn),  and  the  Vulgate  (intelli- 
get),  is  only  defective  because  it  makes  the  verb  denote  the  possession  of  intel- 
ligence, and  not  its  active  exercise,  which  is  required  by  the  Hipliil  form  and 
by  the  connection,  as  well  here  as  in  the  parallel  passage,  Jer.  xxiii.  5. 
(Compare  1  Kings  ii.  3.)— Connected  with  this  verse  there  ai-e  two  exegetical 


284  ISAIAH  LIL  [Ver.  18. 

qncstions  which  are  fiimous  as  the  subject  of  dispute  amon;?  interpreters. 
The  first  nnd  least  important  has  rcr-pect  to  the  division  and  arrangement 
of  the  text,  viz.,  whether  ihis  verse  is  to  be  connected  with  what  goes 
before,  or  separated  from  it  an.l  regarded  as  the  introduction  of  a  new 
subject.  The  former  method  is  adopted  in  the  older  versions  and  in  the 
Masorttic  Hebrew  text.  The  latter,  according  to  Procopius  and  others, 
was  pursued  in  the  ancient  iHstribution  of  the  book,  with  which  the  Fathers 
were  familiar,  and  has  been  adojjtcd  in  our  own  day  by  most  writers  on 
Isaah.  A  particular  exegetical  motive  may  be  easily  detected  in  some 
cases  for  preferring  the  one  or  other  of  these  methods.  Thus  Abarbenel 
is  naturally  led  to  sever  these  three  verses  (13-15)  from  what  follows,  by 
a  wish  to  establish  his  peculiar  hypothesis  that  the  Messiah  is  the  subject 
of  these  verses,  but  not  of  the  next  chapter.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
WTiters  who  restrict  the  foregoing  context  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews 
from  exile  have  a  strong  inducement  to  make  this  the  beginning  of  a  new 
discourse  upon  another  subject,  as  the  best  means  of  disguising  the  un- 
natural and  violent  transition  which  their  hypothesis  compels  them  to 
assume.  But  to  this  statement  there  are  certainlv  exceptions.  Thus  the 
usual  division  is  retained  by  Hitzig,  notwithstanding  his  adherence  to  the 
Babylonian  theory;  while  P:wald,  who  adopts  the  other  method,  admits 
that  the  fifty-third  chapter  begins  in  an  entirely  new  tone.  The  ease  with 
which  arbitraiy  arrangements  of  the  text  mav  be  multiplied  derives  some 
illustration  from  Hendewerk's  assertion  that"  chaps,  lii.  7  to  liv.  17  is  a 
distinct  prophecy,  consisting  of  three  parallel  parts,  chap.  lii.  7-15,  chap, 
liii.  1-12,  chap.  liv.  1-17,  so  that  the  favourite  modem  separation  of 
chap.  lii.  13  to  liii.  12  from  the  context  as  a  separate  discourse  is  not  onlv 
arbitrary  but  a  "mutilation  of  the  oracle."  Common  to  all  these  urrangc"- 
meals  is  the  radical  error  of  supposing  that  the  book  is  susceptible  of  dis- 
tribution into  detached  and  independent  parts  ;  u  notion  which,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  is  not  only  theoretically  groundless,  but  practically  hurtful  in 
a  high  degree  to  the  sound  intcrprotaUon  of  these  prophecies.  What  seems 
to  be  gained,  in  such  cases,  by  combining  things  which  ought  to  go  to- 
gether, is  more  than  outweighed  by  the  disadvantage  of  separating  others 
wh:ch  are  no  less  closely  connected.  The  only  satisfactory  method,  as 
we  have  ah-eady  seen,  is  to  regard  the  whole  as  a  continuous  composition, 
and  to  recognise  the  usual  division  into  chapters,  simply  because  it  is 
famdiar  and  on  the  whole  convenient,  although  sometimes  very  injudicious 
and  erroneous.  According  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  the  precise  di^tri- 
bution  of  the  chapters  is  of  no  more  importance  than  that  of  the  para- 
graphs in  any  modem  book,  which  may  sometimes  facilitate  and  sometimes 
hmder  Its  convenient  perusal,  but  can  never  be  regarded  as  authoritative  in 
determining  the  sense.  In  the  case  immediately  before  us,  it  is  proper  to 
resist  the  violent  division  of  the  chapter;  because  when  read  in  its  natural 
connection,  it  shews  how  easy  the  transition  was  from  the  foregoing  promise 
of  deliverance  to  the  description  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  as  the  leader 
of  the  grand  march  just  described,  and  confirms  our  previous  conclusions  as 
to  the  e.Kalted  meaning  of  the  promises  in  question,  and  against  a  forced 
restriction  of  them  to  the  Babylonish  exile.  At  the  same  time  it  is  equallv 
important  that  the  intimate  connection  of  these  versos  with  the  following 
chapter  should  bo  fully  recognised,  in  order  that  the  Servant  of  the  Lord" 
whoso  humiliation  and  exultation  are  hero  mentioned,  may  bo  identified 
with  that  mysterious  Person,  whoso  cxpiatorv  sufferings  and  spiritual 
tnuniphs  n^rm  the  great  theme  of  the  subacqucut  context.     To  the  geuorai 


Vkr.  13.]  ISAIAH  LII.  285 

agreement  among  Jews  and  Christians  as  to  this  identity,  the  forced  hypo- 
thesis already  quoted  from  Abarbenel  may  be  regarded  as  the  sole  excep- 
tion.    It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  meaning  of  the  whole  passage,  to  the 
end  of  the  fifty-third  chapter,  turns  upon  the  question,  "Who  is  meant  by 
^"liy  («;»/  scnrnit)  in  the  verse  before  us  ?     An  individual,  or  a  collective 
body  ?     If  the  latter,  is  it  Israel  as  a  whole,  or  its  better  portion,  or  the 
Prophets,   or  the   Priesthood  ?       If  the   former,   is   it   Moses,   Abraham, 
Uzziah,  Josiah,  Jeremiah,  Cyrus,  an  anonymous  prophet,  the  author  him- 
self, or  the  Messiah  ?     This  is  the  other  exegetical  question  which  has 
been  referred  to,  as  connected  with  this  verse,  and  materially  affecting  the 
interpretation  of  the  whole  passage.     The  answer  to  this  question,  which 
at  once  suggests  itself  as  the  result  of  all  our  previous  inquiries,  is,  that 
the  Servant  of  Jehovah  here,  as  in  chap.  xlii.  1-G,  and  chap.  xlix.  1-9,  is 
the  Messiah,  but  presented  rather  in  his  own  personality  than  in  conjunc- 
tion with  his  people.     According  to  the  rule  already  stated  (see  above,  chap, 
xlii.  1),  the  idea  of  the  Body  here  recedes,  and  that  of  the  Head  becomes 
exclusively  conspicuous  ;  because,  as  we  shall  see  below,  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah  is  exhibited,  not  merely  as  a  teacher  or  a  ruler,  but  as  an  expia- 
tory sacrifice.     That  this  application  of  the  verse  and  the  whole  passage 
to  the  Messiah  was  held  by  the  oldest  school  of  Jewish  interpreters,  ap- 
pears from  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  who  here  has  viij  Servant  the  Messifih, 
and  is  admitted  by  Aben  Ezra,  Jarchi,  Abarbenel,  and  other  Jews,  who 
have  themselves  abandoned  this  opinion,  because  it  would  constrain  them 
to  acknowledge  Christ  as  the  Messiah  of  their  Scriptures.     Detailed  proofs 
from  the  ancient  Jewish  books  themselves  are  given  by  Hengstenberg  in 
his  Christology  (vol.  i.  pp.  292-294).     Gesenius,  too,  explicitly  admits 
that  the  later  Jews  were  no  doubt  led  to  give  up  the  old  interpretation  of 
the  passage  by  polemic  opposition  to  Christians.    (Commentary,  ii.  p.  161.) 
The  same  interpretation  was  maintained,  almost  without  exception,  in  the 
Christian  Church,  till  near  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  w'hen  it  was 
abandoned  by  the  German  theologians  along  with  the  doctrines  of  atone- 
ment and  prophetic  inspiration.    Even  in  Gennany,  however,  it  has  always 
had  its  zealous  adhei*cnts,  and  in  our  own  day  some  of  its  most  able,  learned, 
and  successful  advocates.    In  its  favour  may  be  urged,  besides  the  tradition 
of  the  synagogue  and  church,  the  analogy  of  the  other  places  where  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  is  mentioned,  the  wonderful  agreement  of  the  terms  of 
the  prediction  with  the  character  and  history  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  ex- 
press application  of  the  passage  to  him  by  himself  and  his  inspired  apostles, 
who  appear  to  have  assumed  it  as  the  basis  of  their  doctrine  with  respect 
to  the  atonement,  and  to  have  quoted  it  comparatively  seldom  only  because 
they  had  it  constantly  in  view,  as  appears  from  their  numerous  allusions  to 
it,  and  the  perfect  agreement  of  their  teachings  with  it ;  so  that  even  Gese- 
nius, while  in  one  place  he  argues  from  their  silence  that  they  did  not  find 
the  doctrine  of  atonement  in  the  passage,  says  expressly  in  another,  with  a 
strange   but   gratifying  inconsistency,  that    most  Hebrew  readers,   being 
already  familiar  with   the   notions   of  sacrifice   and  substitution,  must  of 
necessity  have  so  explained  the  place,  and  that  undoubtedly  the  apostolic 
doctrine  as  to  Christ's  expiatory  death  rests  in  a  great  measure  upon  this 
foundation.     (Comm.  ii.  p.  191.)     Tho  detailed  proofs  of  the  Messianic 
exposition  will  be  given  in  the  course  of  the  interpretation,  and  compared 
with  the  other  hjqjotheses  maintained  by  Jews  and  Christians,  which  will 
therefore  only  be  enumerated  here  in  order  that  the  reader  may  recall  them 
for  the  purpose  of  comparison.     The  individual  subjects  which  have  been 


28G  ISAIAU  LII.  [Ver.  13. 

assumed  besides  the  Messiah,  are  Josiah  bv  Aburbenel,  Jeremiah  by  Gro- 
tius,  Uzziah  by  Augusti,  Hezekiah  by  Babrdt,  Isaiah  by  Staudliu,  and 
(according  to  some)  Moses  and  the  Rabbi  Akil  a  Ijy  a  tradition  quoted  in 
the  Talmud,  although  Hengstenberg  supposes  that  these  are  mentioned 
only  as  examples  or  representatives  of  a  whole  class.  An  anonymous 
(lennan  writer  understands  by  the  Servant  of  ibis  verso,  an  unluiown  prophet 
who  suflercd  martyrdom  during  the  exile !  Another  anonymous  writer  of  the 
same  country  :ipplies  the  name  as  a  collective  to  the  Maccabees;  another  to  the 
nobles  carried  oil'  by  Xebuch;ulnezzar,  or  to  their  descendants  who  returned ; 
liolton  applies  it  in  like  manner  to  the  house  or  family  of  Da\id.  Another 
nuuielefs  Gemian  understands  by  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  the  priesthood 
as  a  class  or  body.  This  is  near  akin  to  Hosenmiiller's  early  doctrine  that 
it  means  the  propheis,  wbich  was  afterwards  abandoned  by  its  author,  but 
renewed  by  Gesenius  in  his  Commentaiy,  and  by  I)e  Wette  and  Winer,  while 
Umbreit  attempts  to  blend  it  with  the  Messianic  exposition  by  supposing 
the  Messiah  to  be  set  forth  as  the  greatest  of  the  prophets,  or  as  their  ideal. 
Instead  of  this  hypothesis,  Rosenmiillcr  afterwards  adopted  that  of  the 
rabbins  who  reject  the  Messianic  doctrine  (buch  as  Jarcbi,  Kimchi,  and 
Aben  Ezra),  viz.  that  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  is  the  Jewit^h  people  ;  and 
the  same  opmion  is  maintained  by  Eichhorn  and  Hitzig,  but  with  this  im- 
portant diti'erence  between  the  sui-dimnt  Christian  and  the  Jewish  writers, 
that  the  latter  apply  the  passage  to  the  present  dispersion  of  tbeir  people, 
and  the  former  to  tie  Babylonish  exile.  As  moditications  of  this  general 
hypothesis  may  be  mentioned  Eckeiiuiinu's  extravagant  idea,  that  the 
people  as  such,  or  considered  in  the  abstract,  is  here  distinguished  from 
its  individual  members,  whose  words  he  supposes  to  be  given  in  the  follow- 
ing chapter.  Another  modification  of  tlie  same  opinion  is  the  ground 
assumed  by  Paulus,  Maurer,  Gesenius  in  his  Lexicon,  atid  in  a  still  more 
qualified  manner  by  Ewald  and  Knobel,  viz.  that  the  Servant  of  Jebovah  is 
the  spiritual  Israel,  the  better  portion  of  the  Jewish  people,  as  distinguished 
either  from  their  ungodly  brethren,  or  from  the  heathen,  or  from  both. 
Some  of  these  explanations  are  so  perfectly  groundless  and  extravaf.'ant 
that  thev  can  no  more  be  refuted  than  established.  Tbis  is  especially  the 
case  with  these  which  make  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  any  individual  except 
the  Messiah,  of  wbich  it  has  bccai  well  said  that  they  might  be  multiplied 
ad  lihitvm,  there  being  no  more  show  of  reason  for  the  names  supgesled, 
than  for  a  multitude  of  others  which  have  never  been  proposed.  Tliis  re- 
mark may  be  extended  to  the  theories  which  identify  the  Servant  of  Jebovah 
with  the  Maccabees,  the  House  of  David,  the  Noble  Exiles,  and  the  Priest- 
hood, leaving  as  the  only  plausible  hypotheses  besides  the  Messianic  one, 
those  which  severally  understand  the  title  as  denoting  the  order  of  Propbets 
or  the  Jewish  people,  either  as  a  whole,  or  in  relation  to  its  better  part. 
To  these  the  attention  of  the  reader  will  be  therefore  directed  in  comparison 
with  that  which  is  assumed  as  the  basis  of  the  exposition,  leaving  otbers  to 
refute  themselves.  Of  those  which  have  been  mentioned  as  entitled  to 
comparative  consideration,  that  wbich  approaches  nearest  to  the  truth  is  the 
hyiiothesis  of  P.eck  and  Kwald,  that  by  tlio  Servant  of  Jthovnh  we  are  to 
understand  the  ideal  Israel,  or  rather  it  denotes  the  I.srael  of  God,  not  con- 
sidered as  a  nation  or  a  race,  but  as  the  church  or  chost  n  people,  who  in  some 
sense  represented  the  Messiah  till  ho  came,  and  is  therefore  often  blinded 
with  him  in  the  prophetic  picture  as  n  complex  person,  simetimes  more  and 
sometimes  less  conspicuous,  but  here,  as  we  have  seen  already,  totally 
eclipsed  by  the  image  of  the  Ucad  himself.    And  yet  even  in  this  case  there 


Ver.  14,  15.]  ISAIAH  Lll.  287 

are  visible  such  striking  points  of  similarity  between  the  Body  and  the  Head, 
that  altliough  this  passage  can  directly  refer  only  to  the  latter,  it  confiiins 
the  previous  conclusion  that  in  other  cases  the  reverse  is  true.  The  general 
■views  which  have  been  now  expressed  on  this  and  other  points  will  be 
reduced  to  a  more  specific  foim  in  the  progress  of  the  exposition,  dui-ing 
the  course  of  which  respect  will  be  had,  not  only  to  the  commentaries 
usually  quoted  in  this  work,  but  to  one  or  two  special  monographs,  or 
special  expositions  of  this  passage,  the  most  important  of  which  are  Mar- 
tini's Commentatio  Philologico-critica  (Rostock,  1791),  to  which  most  later 
writers  have  been  largely  indebted,  and  Hengstenberg's  excellent  interpre- 
tation contained  in  the  second  part  of  his  Christologie,  the  valuable  sub- 
stance of  which  it  is  proposed  to  reproduce  in  the  ensuing  pages,  with  some 
changes  both  of  form  and  substance,  and  many  additions  from  more  recent 
sources. — In  the  verse  immediately  before  us  all  that  need  be  added  is,  that 
the  extraordinary  exaltation  promised  in  the  last  clause  is  such  as  could 
never  have  been  looked  for  b}-  the  Prophet,  for  himself  or  for  his  order, 
especially  upon  the  modern  supposition,  that  he  lived  in  the  time  of  the 
exile,  when  the  grounds  for  such  an  expectation  were  far  less  than  at  any 
former  period.  It  may  also  be  observed  that  the  personification  of  the 
prophets  as  an  ideal  individual  is  foreign  from  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures ; 
the  parallelism  of  servant  and  mcasenycrs,  in  the  first  clause  of  chap.  xliv.  2G, 
no  more  proves  the  fiji'st  to  be  collective,  than  the  like  relation  of  Jerusalem 
and  vitk's  of  JiulaJi  in  the  last  clause  prove  the  same  thing  of  Jerusalem. 
The  objeclion,  that  the  title  servant  is  not  applied  elsewhere  to  Messiah, 
would  have  little  force  if  true,  because  the  title  in  itself  is  a  general  one, 
and  may  be  applied  to  any  chosen  instrument ;  it  is  not  true,  however,  as 
the  single  case  of  Zech.  iii.  8  will  snffice  to  shew,  without  appealing  to  the 
fiict,  that  the  same  application  of  the  title,  either  partial  or  exclusive,  has 
been  found  admissible  above  in  chaps,  xlii.  1,  xUx.  3,  and  1.  10. 

14,  15.  As  many  were  shocked  at  thee — so  marred  from  man  his  look,  and 
his  form  from  the  sons  ofman—\-so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations  ;  concerning 
him  shall  kings  stop  their  mouth,  because  tchat  was  not  recounted  to  them  they 
have  seen,  and  what  they  had  not  heard  they  have  perceived.  His  exaltation 
shall  bear  due  proportion  to  his  humiliation  ;  the  contempt  of  men  shall  be 
exchanged  for  wonder  and  respect.  According  to  the  common  agreement  of 
interpreters,  ver.  14  is  the  protasis  and  ver.  15  the  apodosis  of  the  same 
sentence,  the  correlative  clauses  being  introduced,  as  usual  in  cases  of  com- 
parison, by  1'^>^.3  and  )3.  The  construction  is  somewhat  embarrassed  by 
the  intervening  i?  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  clause  of  ver.  14,  which 
most  interpreters,  however,  treat  as  a  parenthesis,  explanatory  of  the  first 
clause  :  "  as  many  were  shocked  at  thee  (because  his  countenance  was  all 
marred,  &c.),  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  &c.  A  simpler  construc- 
tion, though  it  does  not  yield  so  clear  a  sense,  would  be  to  assume  a  double 
apodosis  :  "  as  many  were  shocked  at  thee,  so  was  his  countenance  marred, 
&c.,  so  also  shall  he  sprinkle,"  &c.  As  thus  explained,  the  sense  would  be, 
their  abhoiTence  of  him  was  not  without  reason,  and  it  shall  not  be  without 
requital.  ""^P?^  expresses  a  mixture  of  surprise,  contempt,  and  aversion  ; 
it  is  frequently  applied  to  extraordinary  instances  of  sufiering  when  viewed 
as  divine  judgments.  (Lev.  xxvi.  32,  Ezek.  xxvii.  35,  Jer.  xviii.  10,  xix.  8.) 
It  is  followed  by  the  preposition  ?y  as  usual  when  employed  in  this  sense. 
Many  does  not  mean  all,  nor  is  nations  to  be  anticipated  from  the  other 
clause  ;  there  seems  rather  to  be  an  antithesis  between  many  individuals 
and  many  nations.     As  a  single  people  had  despised  him,  so  the  whole 


288  ISAIAH  LII.  [Ver.  14,  15. 

world  should  admire  him.  rinV"P  is  a  verbal  noun,  cquivalont  in  this  con- 
nection to  an  infinitive  or  passive  participle.  It  strictly  moans  comiptinn^, 
but  is  hero  put  for  disfiguration  <  r  deformity.  De  Dicn's  derivation  of  this 
word  from  nL"D,  "to  anoint,"  has  four.d  no  adherents  among  later  writers. 
Henderson  construes  it  with  "I'l^'pp  (//jp  di\fi<niraiion  of  his  appearance), 
notwithstanding  the  interposition  of  C'^ND.  The  other  recent  writers  make 
it  the  predicate,  and  •"I^N'ip  the  subject  of  the  same  proposition.  By  look 
and /orm  we  ore  neither  to  understand  a  mean  condition  nor  the  personal 
appearance,  but,  as  an  intermediate  idea,  the  visible  effects  of  sufiering. 
The  preposition /;om,  away  from,  may  le  taken  simply  as  expressive  of 
comparison  (ynore  than),  or  more  emphatically  of  negation  {so  as  not  to  be 
human),  which  are  only  ditVerent  gradations  of  the  s;ime  essential  meaning. 
Jahn  supposes  a  climax  in  the  use  of  l^"l<  and  DIK — his  appearance  should 
be  far  below  that  even  of  the  lowest  men  ;  but  this  is  looked  upon  by 
Hengstcnberg  as  weakening  the  expression,  and  is  certainly  unnecessary,  as 
well  as  founded  on  a  dubious  usa;j;e. — H^*  is  the  technical  term  of  the  Mosaic 
law  for  sprinklinfj  water,  oil,  or  blood,  as  a  purifying  rite.  Jerome  supposes  a 
specific  reference  to  the  blood  of  Christ  and  the  water  of  baptism.  Heng- 
stcnberg gives  the  verb  the  secondare*  sense  of  cleansing,  but  still  with 
reference  to  the  effects  of  the  atonement.  The  explanation  of  this  word  by 
the  majority  of  modem  writers  as  denoting  that  he  shall  cause  them  to  leap 
for  joy  (Paulus,  ^Yiner,  Gesenius  in  Comm.),  or  rise  from  their  seats  with 
revirtnce  (Ewald,  Gesenius  in  Thes.),  or  start  with  astonishment  (Eich- 
horn,  Hitzig),  or  be  struck  with  cordial  admiration  (Clericus,  Kosenmiiller, 
Maurer,  Umbreit,  Knobel),  is  in  direct  opposition  to  a  perfectly  uniform 
Hebrew  usage,  and  without  any  real  ground  even  in  .\rabic  analogy.  The 
ostensible  reasons  for  this  gross  violation  of  the  clearest  principles  of  lexi- 
cography are  :  first,  the  chimera  of  a  perfect  parallelism,  which  is  never 
urged  except  in  cases  of  gi-eat  necessity ;  and  secondly,  the  fact  that  in 
ever}'  other  case  the  verb  is  followed  by  the  substance  sprinkled,  and  con- 
nected with  the  object  upon  which  it  is  sprinkled  by  a  preposition.  Bat 
since  both  the  constnu'tions  of  the  verb  *' to  sprinkle  "  are  employed  in 
other  languages  (as  we  may  either  speak  of  sprinkling  a  person,  or  of 
sprinkling  water  on  him),  the  transition  must  be  natural,  and  no  one  can 
pretend  to  say  that  two  or  more  examples  of  it  in  a  book  of  this  size  are 
required  to  demonstrate  its  existence.  The  real  motive  of  the  strange 
unanimity  with  which  the  true  sense  has  been  set  aside,  is  the  desire  to 
obliterate  this  dear  description,  at  the  very  outset,  of  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah  as  an  expiatory  purifier,  one  who  must  be  innocent  himself  in 
order  to  cleanse  others, — an  utlice  and  a  character  alike  inapplicable  either  to 
the  prophets  as  a  class,  or  to  Israel  as  a  nation,  or  even  to  the  better  class 
of  Jews,  much  more  to  any  single  individual  except  to  One  who  claimed  to 
be  the  Purifier  of  the  guilty,  and  to  whom  many  nations  do  at  this  day 
ascribe  whatever  purity  of  heart  or  life  they  either  have  or  hope  for. 
Another  objection  to  the  modern  explanation  of  the  word  is,  that  it  then 
anticipates  the  declaration  of  the  next  danso,  instead  of  fonuing  a  connect- 
ing link  between  it  and  the  first.  This  clause  is  understood  by  some  to 
mean  that  they  shall  be  reverently  silent  l>e/ore  hivi,  by  others  that  they 
shall  be  dumb  with  wonder  on  account  of  him,  by  others  that  they  shall  be 
silent  rcs]>fclin<j  him,  i.  e.  no  longer  utter  expressions  of  aversion  or  con- 
tempt. Gesenius  asks  whether  kings  ever  bowed  personally  to  Christ,  as 
intimated  here  and  in  chap.  xlix.  7  ;  to  which  Ilengstenberg  rejjlies,  that 
the  only  word  which  crcutvs  the   difliculty  {persvnallt/)  is  supplied  by  the 


A 


Vkr.  1.]  ISAIAH  LIII.  289 

objector ;  that  multitudes  of  kings  have  bowed  to  Christ  in  one  sense, 
whereas  none  in  any  sense,  have  ever  thus  acknowledged  their  sub- 
jection to  the  prophets,  or  to  Israel,  or  even  to  the  pious  Jews,  or  could 
have  been  expected  so  to  do. — The  reason  of  this  voluntary  humiliation  is 
expressed  in  the  last  clause,  viz.,  because  they  see  things  of  which  they 
had  never  had  experience,  or  even  knowledge  by  report.  This  expression 
shows  that  many  nations  must  be  taken  in  its  natural  and  proper  sense,  as 
denoting  the  Gentiles.  It  is  accordingly  applied  by  Paul  (llom.  xv.  21)  to 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  among  those  who  had  never  before  heard  it. 
Interpreters  have  needlessly  refined  in  interpreting  the  verb  see  as  signify- 
ing mental,  no  less  than  bodily  perception.  The  truth  is  that  the  language 
is  not  scientific,  but  poetical ;  the  writer  does  not  put  sight  for  experience, 
but  on  the  contrary  describes  experience  as  simple  vision. — For  the  stop- 
ping of  the  mouth,  as  an  expression  of  astonishment  or  reverence,  see  Job 
ixix.  9,  xl.  4,  Ps.  cvii.  42,  Ezek.  xvi.  G3,  Micah  vii.  IG. 


CHAPTER  LIII. 

Notwithstanding  these  and  other  prophecies  of  the  Messiah,  he  is  not 
recognised  when  ho  appears,  ver,  1.  He  is  not  the  object  of  desire  and 
trust,  for  whom  the  great  mass  of  the  people  have  been  waiting,  ver.  2. 
Nay,  his  low  condition,  and  especially  his  suflerings,  make  him  rather  an 
object  of  contempt,  ver.  3.  But  this  humiliation  and  these  sufferings  arc 
vicarious,  not  accidental  or  incurred  by  his  own  fault,  vers.  4-G.  Hence, 
though  personally  innocent,  he  is  perfectly  unresisting,  ver.  7.  Even  they 
for  whom  he  sufl'ers  ma}'  mistake  his  person  and  his  office,  ver.  8.  His 
case  presents  the  two  extremes  of  righteous  punishment,  and  perfect  inno- 
cence, ver.  9.  But  the  glorious  fruit  of  these  very  suflerings  will  correct 
all  errors,  ver.  10.  He  becomes  a  Saviour  only  by  becoming  a  substitute, 
ver.  11.  Even  after  the  work  of  expiation  is  completed,  and  his  glorious 
reward  secured,  the  work  of  intercession  will  be  still  continued,  ver.  12. 

1.  Jflio  /lafh  hclicvcd  our  report?  and  the  arm  of  Jehovah,  to  ivhom  (or 
xipon  icliom)  has  it  been  revealed  ?  "Wbile  most  modern  writers,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  detach  the  three  preceding  verses  and  prefix  them  to  this  chap- 
ter, Hitzig  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  saying  that  the  writer  here  begins 
afresh,  without  any  visil)le  connection  with  the  previous  context.  Ewald 
more  reasonably  makes  this  a  direct  continuation,  but  observes  a  change  of 
tone,  from  that  of  joyous  confidence  to  that  of  penitent  confession,  on  the 
part  of  the  believing  Jews,  in  reference  to  their  former  incredulity.  Mar- 
tini, Jahn,  and  Rosenmiillcr  put  these  words  into  the  mouth  of  the  heathen, 
acknowledging  their  error  with  respect  to  the  suflerings  of  Israel.  But  this 
hypothesis,  besides  being  arbitrary  in  itself,  and  unsustained  hy  any  parallel 
case  in  which  the  heathen  are  thus  introduced  as  speaking,  requires  a  forced 
interpretation  to  be  put  upon  the  language  of  the  verse.  Thus  Rosenmiiller 
understands  the  first  clause  as  meaning  "  who  of  us  would  have  believed 
this,  had  we  merely  heard  instead  of  seeing  it  ?"  And  the  last  clause  in 
like  manner,  ''unto  whom  has  the  arm  of  Jehovah  been  revealed  as  unto 
us?"  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers  much  more  naturally  understand  the  — 
Prophet  as  speaking  in  his  own  name  or  in  that  of  the  prophets  generally, 
not  his  predecessors  or  contemporaries  merely,  as  Jerome  and  Van  Der  Palm 
assume  without  necessity.  They  also,  for  the  most  part,  retain  the  strict 
sense  of  the  preterite,  which  Hengstenberg  and  Hendewerk  exchange  for 

VOL.  II.       •  T 


290  ISAIAH  LI II.  [Veb.  1. 

the  present  form,  believes  nnd  ia  rcvnded. — ny^C^'  is  properly  the  passive 
participle  of  the  verb  to  hear,  the  feminine  beiu;,'  used  like  the  neuter  to 
denote  what  is  heard,  and  may  therefore  bo  applied  to  rumour,  to  instruc- 
tion, or  to  speech  in  general.  (See  chnp.  xxiii.  9,  19,  Jcr.  xlix.  14,  and 
compare  the  Greek  axojj,  Rom.  x.  IG,  Gal.  iii.  2,  1  Thess.  ii.  13.)  Hitzig 
supposes  that  the  word  was  here  supgested  by  the  lyp^l'  ^^  the  preceding 
verse.     The  restricted  applications  of  the  t*,'im,  by  Gesenius  and  Maurer  to 

\the  news  of  :he  delivenmoe  from  Babylon,  and  by  Hendewerk  to  the  pre- 
ceding strophe  (chap.  Iii.  7-15),  are  alike  gratuitous.  I^Iartiiii,  Jahu,  and 
—  Rosenn;uller,  in  accordance  with  their  notion  that  the  heathen  are  here 
Bpeakirg,  understand  the  whole  phrase  passively,  as  meaning  "  that  which 
we  have  heard  ;"  and  the  same  sense,  on  a  wholly  different  hypothesis,  is 
also  given  by  Umbreit  and  Knubel,  the  last  of  whom  apphes  the  term  to 
that  which  the  prophet  is  described  as  having  heard  in  chap.  1.  4,  5. 
Gesenius,  Hengstenberg,  and  others  understand  it  actively,  as  meaning  that 
which  we  have  published  in  the  hearing  of  others  ;  which  agrees  well  with 
the  context  and  with  Paul's  quotation  (Rom.  x.  IG),  and  is  perfectl}-  con- 
sistent with  the  strict  sense  of  the  Hebrew  words,  though  not  sustained  by 
any  definite  usage,  as  Henderson  alleges.  That  the  words  might  have  either 
of  these  senses  in  different  connections,  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact, 
that  in  2  Sam.  iv.  4,  the  qualifying  noun  denotes  neither  the  author  nor 
the  recipient  of  the  declaration,  but  its  subject,  so  tliat  in  itself  the  phrase 
is  quite  indefinite.  Some  understand  the  interrogation  in  this  clause  as 
implying  an  absolute  negation,  which,  according  to  Hendewerk,  includes  the 
Ten,-  Servant  of  Jehovah  himself,  who  is  described  as  blind  and  deaf  in 
chap.  xlii.  19.  But  there,  as  we  have  seen,  the  prominent  idea  in  the  Ser- 
vant of  Jthovah  is  the  Body,  whereas  here  it  is  the  Head.  According  to 
Hengstenberg  the  implied  negation  is  not  absolute,  but  simply  expressive 
of  wonder  at  the  paucity  of  true  believers  in  the  word  at  large,  but  more 
especially  among  the  Jews,  to  whom,  with  Van  Der  Pidm,  he  understands 
the  passage  as  specifically  referring,  because  it  had  already  been  predicted, 
in  the  foregoing  verse,  that  the  heathen  would  believe.  There  is  no  in- 
consistency, however,  even  if  we  take  the  words  before  us  in  their  widest 
sense ;  because,  as  Calvin  has  observed,  the  prophet  interrupts  his  predic- 
tion of  success  and  triumph  to  bewail  the  disrcouragements  and  disappoint- 
ments which  should  intervene.  The  same  thing  had  already  been  predicted 
indirectly  in  chap.  xlii.  Ii4,  and  similar  objections  to  his  own  assurances 
occur  in  chap.  xlix.  14,  24.  ■^  The  last  clause  is  understood  by  Knobel  as 
assigning  a  reason  for  the  unbelief  described  in  the  first  :  they  did  not  be- 
lieve what  they  heard,  because  they  did  not  see  the  arm  of  Jehovah  visibly 
revealed.  IJut  most  int<r])reter8  regard  the  two  as  parallel  expressions  of 
the  same  idea  :  to  believe  what  God  said,  and  to  see  his  arm  revealed,  be- 
ing really  identical.  The  advent  of  Christ,  his  miracles,  his  resuiTection, 
his  ascension,  are  among  the  clearest  proofs  of  the  divine  omnipotence  and 
of  its  real  exercise,  a  sceptical  misgiving  as  to  which  is  involved  in  a  refusal 
to  believe.  The  arvi  as  the  seat  of  active  strength  is  often  put  for  strength 
itself  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  R,  Job  xxii.  8,  Jer.  xvii.  5).  and  especially  for  the 
power  of  Jehovah  (chap.  li.  x.  IG,  Deut.  iv.  34,  v.  15.  xxvi.  8).  In  this 
sense  it  is  c(»mn)()iily  regarded  as  convertible  with  hand ;  but  J^ondewt-rk 
maintains  that  the  latter  only  is  applied  to  a  gracious  exercise  of  power 
(chaps,  xli.  20,  xlv.  11,  12,  xl'viii.  18,  xlix.  2,  22,  lix.  1),  while  the  former 
always  has  respect  to  war  (cbap.s.  xl.  10,  Iii.  10,  Ixiii.  5,  lix.  IG).  Ho 
therefore  gives  the  clause  exclusive  reference  to  what  God  had  already  done 


Ver.  2.]  ISAIAH  LIU.  '  291 

for  CjTiis,  and  designed  to  do  for  Israel,  by  making  them  victorious  over 
all  their  enemies.  But  this  distinction,  though  ingenious,  is  fallacious  ; 
because  it  confounds  the  usual  application  of  a  figure  with  its  essential 
meaning,  and  entirely  overlooks  the  many  cases  in  which  hand  has  reference 
to  the  divine  vengeance  {e.fj.  chap.  ix.  11,  20,  x.  4,  xix.  IG,  xxv.  10,  li.  17), 
while  in  some  of  the  cases  where  the  arm  is  mentioned  (chap.  xl.  12,  and 
li.  5)  it  is  hard  to  discover  any  reference  to  war.  But  the  true  solution 
of  the  difficulty  is,  that  the  manifestation  of  God's  justice  is  commonly 
described  by  Isaiah  as  including  at  the  same  time  the  deliverance  of  his 
friends,  and  the  destruction  of  his  enemies.     (See  above,  chap.  li.  5.) — The 

use  of  ^y  in  the  last  clause  is  explained  by  some  as  a  mere  variation  of  the 
usual  construction  with  ?N  or  7  ;  but  Hengstenberg  regards  it  as  implving 
that  the  revelation  comes  from  above,  and  Hitzig  supposes  an  allusion  to 
the  elevation  of  the  arm  itself. 

2.  And  he  came  up  like  the  tender  plant  before  him,  and  like  the  root  from 
a  drij  r/roi(nd;  he  had  no  form  nor  comeliness,  and  we  nhall  see  him,  and  no 
sigh}  that  ice  should  desire  it.  There  is  sonu'tliing  almost  ludicrous  to 
modern  renders  in  Yitringa's  pedantic  notion  that  the  Prophet  puts  these 
words  into  the  mouth  of  a  chorus  of  converted  Jews.  There  is  also  some- 
thing too  artificial  in  Van  Der  Palm's  dramatic  distribution  of  the  passage, 
according  to  which  the  Prophet's  censure  of  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  (ver. 
1)  is  followed  by  their  justification  of  it  (vers.  2,  3),  while  the  first  clause 
of  the  fourth  verse  contains  the  Prophet's  answer,  and  the  last  the  rejoinder 
of  the  Jews,  after  which  the  Prophet  speaks  again  without  any  further  in- 
terruption. ]Most  of  the  modern  writers  agree  with  Gesenins  in  making 
all  that  follows  the  first  verse  the  language  of  the  people,  acknowledging 
their  own  incredulitj-  with  respect  to  the  Messiah,  and  assigning  as  its  cause 
their  carnrd  expectations  of  a  temporal  prince,  and  their  ignorance  of  the 
very  end  for  which  he  came.  The  hypothesis  of  Kosenmiiller  and  others, 
who  regard  this  as  the  language  of  the  heathen,  acknowledging  their  error 
with  respect  to  Israel,  has  been  already  mentioned.  (See  above,  on  chap, 
lii.  13.)  A  novel  and  ingenious,  but  untenable  hypothesis,  has  been  more 
recently  proposed  by  Hendewerk,  viz.  that  the  speakers  are  the  elder  race 
of  exiles  in  Babylon,  by  whose  transgressions  that  infliction  was  occasioned, 
and  that  the  sull'erer  here  described  is  the  younger  race,  for  whose  sake  it 
was  terminated,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  fathers  and  children  who  came 
out  of  Egypt. — The  1  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  is  not  causative,  but 
narrative,  determining  the  past  tense  of  the  future  form,  and  connecting 
the  sentence  either  with  chap.  lii.  14  or  15,  or,  which  is  the  simplest  and 
most  natural  construction,  with  the  verse  immediately  preceding,  which, 
although  interrogative  in  form,  involves  an  affinuation,  namely,  that  the 
people  were  incredulous,  which  general  statement  is  here  amplified. — The 
common  version  of  7V!1  as  a  future  proper  {lie  shall  grow  up)  is  utterly 
precluded  by  the  Vav  conversive,  and  gi-atuitously  violates  the  uniformity  of 
the  description,  which  presents  the  humiliation  of  Messiah  as  already  past. — 
P.3V  is  properly  a  sicclU?ig,  but  is  here  used  precisely  like  the  cognate 
English  word  sucker,  by  which  Lowth  translates  it.  On  the  meaning  of 
'^'y^,  see  vol.  i.  p.  255-G. — Out  of  a  dry  ground  implies  a  feeble,  sickly 
growth,  and,  as  its  consequence,  a  mean  appearance.  The  cby  ground, 
according  to  Alexander  Morns,  is  Bethlehem,  which  he  describes,  on  the 
authority  of  Strabo,  as  a  barren  spot.  Along  with  this  may  be  recorded 
tho  opinion  of  Eusebius  and  other  fathers,  that  the  diy  ground  was  tho 


2'J2  IS  ALU  I  LUI.  ,Vkr.  8. 

Virgin  ^lan-;  of  which  Calvin  mi^ht  well  say,  extra  rem  loquuntur.  Out 
of  a  dry  qround  and  the  parallel  expression  [before  him)  may  be  con- 
sidered as  qualifyinf^  both  the  nouns,  and  separated  only  for  the  sake  of 
the  rhythmical  arranj^emeut  of  the  sentence.  Jlc/ore  him  is  translated  by 
Henderson  before  (hem,  and  by  Lowth  in  their  sight,  iu  accordance  with 
the  explanation  of  J.  H.  Miehaelis,  who  regards  it  as  descriptive  of  the 
popular  misapprehension  and  contempt  of  Christ.  Most  writers  take  it 
strictly  as  a  singular,  referring  to  Jehovah,  and  analogous  in  meaning  to 
those  words  of  Peter,  disallowed  indetd  of  men,  but  chosen  of  <iod  and  pre- 
cious (1  Pet.  ii.  -1).  It  is  well  observed  by  Henderson,  however,  that  it  was 
not  in  the  sight  of  God  that  the  Messiah  was  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground,  but  in 
that  of  the  people. — He  had  not,  literally,  there  was  not  to  him,  the  only  form 
in  which  that  idea  can  be  expressed  in  Hebrew. — Form  is  hero  put  for  beau- 
tiful or  handsome  form,  as  in  1  Sam.  xvi.  18  David  is  called  a  vian  of  form, 
i.e.  a  comely  person.  The  two  nouns  here  used  are  combined  in  literal 
description  elsewhere  {e.g.  Gen.  xxix.  17,  1  Sam,  xxv.  31),  and  in  this  very 
passage  (see  above,  chap.  lii.  13).  They  denote  in  this  case,  not  mere 
personal  appearance,  but  the  whole  state  of  humiliation,  and,  as  Calvin  says, 
arc  to  be  understood  de  toto  regno  cujus  nulla  in  oculis  hominum  forma, 
nuUtis  decor,  nulla  magnijicentia  fuit. — The  modern  writers  generally  dis- 
regard the  Masoretic  interpunction  of  this  sentence,  and  connect  ^'"'N'lJ^  with 
the  first  clause,  as  a  parallel  to  -innpnil..  The  meaning  then  is,  no  form  or 
beauty  that  we  should  look  at  him,  no  appearance  that  we  should  desire  him. 
This  is  precisely  the  construction  adopted  by  Symmachus,  ha  tldu'in,  ha 
i'Z'iDv/MriOuj/iiv.  But  as  this  relation  of  the  clauses  is  too  obvious  to  have 
escaped  the  Masoretic  critics,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  they  were 
influenced  in  setting  it  aside  by  high  traditional  authority.  There  is,  be- 
sides, a  ditKculty,  if  it  be  retained,  in  explaining  the  use  of  the  verb  HN^, 
which  means  to  view  with  pleasure  only  when  followed  by  the  preposition 
3,  and  the  sense  that  we  should  look  at  him  docs  not  seem  entirely  adequate. 
If  we  adhere  to  the  !Masoretic  interpunction,  there  is  no  need  of  paraphras- 
ing -in^"*^)  with  the  English  Version  {when  we  shall  see  him);  it  is  better  to 
give  it  its  direct  and  proper  sense  {and  we  shall  see  him).  But  as  both 
these  versions  suppose  a  transition  from  the  form  of  narrative  to  that  of 
prophecy,  there  is  the  same  objection  to  them  as  to  the  common  version  of 

7y?1.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  leaving  out  of  view  the  authority  of  the 
Masorah,  the  usual  construction  is  the  most  satisfactory. — In  what  sense 
the  prophets  thus  grew  up  like  suckers  from  a  dr}*  soil,  or  the  Jewish 
nation  while  in  exile,  or  the  pious  portion  of  them,  or  the  younger  race,  it 
is  as  d'Hicult  to  understand  or  even  to  conceive,  as  it  is  easy  to  recognise 
this  trait  of  the  prophetic  picture  in  the  humiliation  of  our  Saviour,  and 
the  general  contempt  to  which  it  exposed  him. 

.'}.  DeHpiHcd  and  fornaken  of  men  {or  ceasinf/  from  among  men],  a  man  of 
sorrotrs  and  arijuainti'd  with  nirlncKH,  and  like  one  hiding  ihr  face  from  him 
(or  us\  despised,  and  ire  entcemed  him  not.  From  tlu'  g^fUeral  »b'serii)tit>n 
of  his  humiliation,  the  Prophet  now  passes  to  a  more  particular  account  of 

his  Huficrings.— /!!in,  from  7nn  to  cease,  is  by  some  taken  in  a  passive  and 
by  others  in  an  active  sense.  On  the  former  supposition,  the  whole 
phrase  may  mean  rejected  of  men  (English  Version),  forsaken  bg  men,  i.e. 
by  his  friends,  as  in  Job  xix.  11  (Gescnius),  or  avoided  by  men,  as  an 
object  of  abhorrence  (Hitzig,  Ewald,  Hendewcrk).  On  the  other  sup- 
position, it  is  explained  by  llengsteubcrg  as  meaning  one  who  ceases  fnun 


Ver.  3.]  ISAIAH  LI  1 1.  293 

among  men,  i.e.  ceases  to  be  a  man,  or  to  be  so  considered.     This  is  pro- 
bably the  sense  intended  by  the  Septuagint  version,  and  is  certainly  the  one 
expressed  by  Aben  Ezra  (D'Of)  DJ^JSpriiTp).     The  version  of  Symma- 
c\ins~((Xd^i<!Tog  avd^uv),  with  which  the  Vulgate  and  Peshito  substantially 
agree,  seems  to  rest  upon  the  same  construction  of  /TH  that  is  proposed  by 
Martini,  who  regards  both  this  word  and  n.p3  as  adjectives,  deriving  a  super- 
lative import  from  the  plural  following,  the  most  despised  and  forsaken  of 
men.     (Compare  Ps.  xsii.  7,  Prov.  xv.  20.)     But  for  this  sense  there  is 
no  authority  in  usage. — The  phrase  man  of  sorrows  seems  to  mean  one 
M'hose  afflictions  are  his  chief  characteristic,  perhaps  with  an  allusion  to 
their  number  in  the  plural  form.     (Compare  Prov.  xxix.  1.)     Symmachus 
translates  the  phrase  yvmsrhg  voaui,  which  is  generally  understood  to  mean, 
known  or  distinguished  by  disease ;   and  this  sense  is  retained   by  J.  D. 
."\Iichaelis,    Paulus,    Jahn,    lloseumiiller,    Gesenius    in    his    Commentar}-, 
Maurer,  and  Umbreit.      The  Septuagint,  Vulgate,  and  Peshito,  give  the 
first  word  the  sense  of  knoioing  {iid'Jj;,  sciens),  from  which  Lowth  infers 
that  they  read  y"!1\     But  Hengstenberg  and  others  have   shewn  that  the 
passive  participle  is  itself  employed  like  acquainted  in  English,  so  that  there 
is  no  need  of  supposing  any  ditierence  of  text,  or  even  that  the  passive  form 
was  used  in  an  active  sense.     (Compare  Song  Sol.  iii.  8 ;  Ps.   cxii.   7, 
ciii.  14.)     Gesenius  m  his  Commentary  characterizes  this  interpretation  of 
the  word  as  "  false,"  but  quietly  adopts  it  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Ger- 
man Version. — In  the  next  phrase  "l/^P^  is  by  some  regarded  as  a  participle, 
and  by  others  as  a  noun.     On  the  former  supposition,  the  entire  phrase  is 
explained   by  the   Septuagint,  Vulgate,  Targum,  Aquila,   Jarchi,   Lowth, 
Koppe,  De  Wette,  and  others,  as  meaning,  he  was  like  one  hiding  his  face 
from  us,  with  allusion  to  the  veiling  of  the  face  by  lepers  (Lev.  xiii.  45)  or 
by  mourners  (2  Sam.  xv.  30;  Ez.  xiv.  17),  or  as  an  expression  of  shame 
(Micah  iii.  7).     To  this  Gesenius  objects  in  his  Commentar}-,  that  the 
whole  description  has  respect,  not  to  the  conduct  of  the  sutJ'erer,  but  to  his 
appearance  in  the  sight  of  others.     In  the  Thesaurus,  he  adopts  this  very 
explanation,  without  noticing  his  own  objection,  though  he  still  avows  a  jire- 
ference  for  his  former  construction,  notwithstanding  the  harshness  with 
which  it  may  be  charged,  viz.  like  one  from  whom  one  hides  the  face.     J. 
H.  Michaelis  and  Rosenmiiller  give  the  Hiphil,  as  usual,  a  causative  sense, 
like  one  making  (others)  hide  the  face  from  him.     But  in  every  other  case 
Tnpn  simply  means  to  hide,  and  occurs  repeatedly  in  that  sense  with  this 
very  noun  D'J3.     It  may  also  be  objected  to  the  explanation  of  the  word  as 
a  participle,  that  analogy  and  usage  would  require  the  form  1'JllDP,  which 
is  actually  found  in  four  manuscripts,  but  no  doubt  as  a  conjectural  emenda- 
tion.    Kimchi,  IMartini,  and  Hengstenberg,  take  I'TIP?  as  an  abstract  noun, 
meaning  properly  concealment,  and  explain  the  whole  phrase,  like  conceal- 
ment of  the  face  from  it,  /.  e.  like  that  which  causes  men  to  hide  the  face 
from  it.     But  although  the  hiding  of  the  face  is  elsewhere  mentioned  as  a 
natural  expression  of  displeasure,  shame,  and  sorrow,  it  does  not  occur  as 
an  expressiou  of  contemptuous  astonishment,  and  seems  to  be  a  forced  and 
exaggerated  method   of  expressing  such  a  feeling.     It  may  therefore   be 
better  on  the  whole  to  combine  the  explanation  of  "li^pD  as  a  noun  with  that 
of  -I^J^P  as   a  pronoun   of  the   first  person,  and  to  understand  the  whole 
phrase  as  meaning,  like  a  hiding  of  the  face  from  us,  /.  e.  as  if  he  hid   his 
face  from  us  in  shame  and  sorrow  ;  notwithstanding  the  objection  of  Gese- 
nius, that  the  subject  of  description  is  not  the  demeanour  of  the  sufferer, 
which  has  not  only  been  abandoned  by  himself  (although  renewed  by  Heng- 


294  ISAIAH  LI  1 1.  [Ver.  4. 

stenberg),  bat  is  in  itself  unrdnsonable,  since  the  writer's  purpose  was  not 
to  obstrvf  the  unities  of  rhetoric,  but  to  make  n  stronj^  impression  of  the 
voluiitiirv  humiliation  of  the  Messiah,  which  could  not  be  more  efl'ectually 
secured  by  any  single  stroke  than  by  the  one  before  us,  thus  explained. — 
Gesenius,  Hengstenberg,  and  Umbreit  follow  the  Peshito  in  making  npi  the 
first  person  plural  (we  despised  him) ;  and  Martini  supplies  the  want  of  a 
suffix  by  reading  N^  inT33  instead  of  N«'l  ntli.  But  the  anomalous  use  of 
the  futuri'  creates  a  difliculty  not  to  be  gratuitously  introduced ;  and  the 
analogy  of  nt?3  in  the  firirt  clause  makes  it  much  more  natural  to  take  this 
as  a  participle  likewise,  with  the  other  ancient  versions,  and  with  Maurer, 
Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Ivnobel. — Here  again  the  reader  is  invited  to  compare 
the  forced  application  of  this  verse  to  the  Prophets,  to  all  Israel,  to  tlie 
pious  Jews,  or  to  the  younger  race  of  exiles,  with  the  old  interpretation  of 
it  as  a  prophecy  of  Christ's  humiliation. 

4.  Sunli/  our  sicknesses  he  lore,  ami  our  f/rie/t  he  carried ;  and  we  ihoiighl 
him  strichrii,  swillen  of  God,  and  afflicted.  pN  is  determined,  both  by  its 
etymology  and  usage,  to  be  a  particle  of  affirmation.  The  sense  of  but, 
assumed  by  most  interpreters,  is  rather  what  they  think  the  writer  should 
have  said,  than  what  he  has  said.  The  comparatively  rare  use  of  adversative 
particles  iu  Hebrew  has  already  been  menticmed  as  a  striking  idiomatic 
peculiarity.  The  metaphor  is  that  of  a  burden,  and  the  meaning  of  the 
whole  verse  is,  that  they  had  misunderstood  the  very  end  for  which  Messiah 
was  to  come.  Sickness,  as  in  the  verse  preceding,  is  a  representative  ex- 
pression for  all  suffi^riug.  Our  f/rirfs,  those  which  we  must  otherwise  have 
suffered,  and  that  justly.  The  plural  li'^n  is  defectively  written  for  »"^n, 
which  last  appears,  however,  in  eleven  manuscripts  and  eighteen  editions ; 
while  on  the  other  hand  twenty  manuscripts  and  two  editions  have  the 
defective  form  -li^ti^p,  w  hich  cannot  be  suigular,  because  the  pronoun  which 
refers  to  it  is  plural.  Henderson  makes  his  English  versicni  more  expres- 
sive of  the  writer's  main  drift  by  employing  the  idiomatic  form,  it  itns  our 
griefs  he  lure,  it  was  our  sorrows  he  carried. — The  explanation  of  Nw'3  as 
meaning  merely  took  away,  is  contradicted  by  the  context,  and  especially  by 
the  parallel  phrase  C?3p,  which  can  only  mean  he  bore  or  carried  them.  It 
is  alleged,  indeed,  that  one  is  never  said  to  bear  the  sins  of  another,  and 
Bome  go  so  far  as  to  explain  these  words  as  meaning  that  ho  bore  with  them 
patiently,  while  others  understand  the  sense  to  be  that  he  shared  in  the 
Bufferings  of  others.  But  the  terms  are  evidently  drawn  from  the  Mosaic 
hiw  of  sacrifice,  a  prominent  feature  in  which  is  the  substitution  of  the 
victim  for  the  actual  offender,  so  that  the  former  bears  the  sins  of  the  latter, 
and  the  latter,  in  default  of  such  an  exi)iatiou,  is  said  to  bear  his  own  sin. 
(See  Lev.  v.  1,  17,  xvii.  10,  xxiv.  1~> ;  Num.  ix.  18,  xiv.  88  ;  Kxod.  xxiii. 

88;  Lev.  x.  17,  xvi.  22.)  For  the  use  of /?D  in  the  same  vicarious  sense, 
Boc  Lam.  v.  7.  (Compare  Ez.  xviii.  19.)  The  Septua^jint  in  the  case 
before  us  has  fhti,  Symuuichus  dvi/.a/3i.  The  application  of  these  words 
by  Matthew  (viii.  17)  to  the  removal  of  bodily  diseases  cannot  involve  a 
denial  of  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement,  which  is  clearly  recognised  in 
Alat.  XX.  2H ;  nor  is  it  an  exposition  of  the  passage  (pioti  d  iu  its  full  sense, 
but,  as  Calvin  well  explains  it,  an  intimation  that  the  prediction  hud  begun 
to  be  fultilled,  becau.-e  already  its  effects  were  visible,  the  Scriptures  always 
representing  sorrow  as  the  fruit  of  sin. — Strich^,  as  in  some  other  cases, 
has  the  pregnant  sense  of  stricken  fiovi  alovc,  as  Noyes  expresses  it,  or 
$inUlen  of  God,  as  it  is  fully  expressed  in  the  next  clause.     (See  Gen. 


Vkr.  5.]  ISAIAH  LIU.  295 

xii.  17;  2  Kings  xv.  5  ;  1  Sam.  vi.  9.)  There  is  no  nceJ,  therefore,  of 
supposing  an  elHpsis.  The  other  verb  np3  was  particularly  applied  to  the 
infliction  of  disease  (Num.  xiv.  12  ;  Deut.  xxviii.  22),  especially  the 
leprosy ;  which  led  Jerome  to  give  J^I^J  the  specific  sense  leprous.  Hence 
the  old  Jewish  notion  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  leper.  Theotloret  more 
correctly  uses  the  generic  term  fiifiasrr/u/j^'noc,  equivalent  to  the  'rr'Arr/n's 
^soD  iLuartyi  of  iEschylus. — Instead  of  the  construct  form  ^~ip,  some  manu- 
scripts exhibit  the  absolute  '"'.SP;  ■which  is  preferred  by  Bellarmine  and  some 
others,  who  explain  the  whole  phrase  as  meaning  a  strickoi  God,  and  use 
it  as  a  proof  of  the  divinity  of  Christ. — By  stricken,  smitten,  and  afllicted 
we  are  of  course  not  to  understand  stricken,  smitten,  and  afflicted  for  his 
own  sins,  or  merely  stricken,  smitten,  and  afflicted,  without  an}-  deeper 
cause  or  higher  purpose  than  in  other  cases  of  severe  suffering.  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  suppose  a  reference  to  the  notion  that  great  sufiering  was  a 
proof  of  great  iniquity.  (Compare  Luke  xiii.  1  ;  John  ix.  2.) — In  order  to 
reconcile  this  verse  with  their  hypotheses,  Knobel  and  Hendewerk  are 
under  the  necessity  of  proving  that  the  pious  Jews  or  younger  race  of  exiles 
suffered  more  in  the  captivity  than  any  others,  which  they  do  with  great 
ease  by  applying  thus  all  the  descriptions  of  maltreatment  which  occur 
throughout  the  Later  Prophecies. 

5.  And  he  was  pierced  (or  wounded)  for  oxir  transgressions,  hrtnsed  (or 
crushed)  for  our  iniquities  ;  the  chastisement  (or  punishment)  of  our  peace 
(was)  upon  him,  a)id  hy  his  strijws  xve  were  healed.  The  translation  of  the 
particle  at  tlie  beginning  by  tvhereas,  ijra,  or  the  like,  is  a  departure  from 
the  Hebrew  idiom  wholly  unnecessary  to  the  clearness  of  the  passage,  which 
is  continued  in  the  simple  narrative  or  descriptive  form.  Aben  Ezra's  ap- 
plication of  the  verse  to  the  sufferings  of  the  Jews  in  their  present  exile  and 
dispersion,  is  W'orthy  of  a  place  by  the  side  of  Hendewerk's  assertion  that 
the  Prophet  here  speaks  as  one  of  the  older  race  of  captives  in  Babylon, 
acknowledging  the  error  of  himself  and  his  contemporaries  with  respect  to 
the  younger  and  better  generation. — ^^^l^P  is  derived  by  Cocccius  from 
^■"in  to  writhe  with  pain,  and  translated  e.vcrucialus  est  ;  but  the  true  deriva- 
tion is  no  doubt  the  common  one  from  ?<T}  to  perforate,  transCx,  or  pierce, 
with  special  reference  to  mortal  wounds  ;  so  that  the  derivative  ?^.n,  though 
strictly  meaning  pierced'  or  wounded,  is  constantly  applied  to  persons  slain 
by  violence,  and  especially  in  battle.  Hence  the  Peshito  version  of  ''<'^P 
{killed),  although  apparently  inaccurate,  is  really  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  lebrew  usage.  Yitringa  and  Henderson  suppose  a  particular  allusion 
to/  M  crucifixion.  Hengstenberg  explains  the  word  more  gencralh-  as  a 
n^  apliorical  expression  for  extreme  suffering.  This  agrees  well  with  the 
'  rallel  expression  crushed  or  bruised,  to  which  there  is  nothing  literally 
jrresponding  in  our  Saviour's  passion ;  and  if  this  must  be  taken  as  a 
iigure  for  distress  of  mind,  or  suffering  in  general,  the  other  can  be  naturally 
understood  only  in  the  same  way.  It  is  very  possible,  however,  that  there 
may  be  a  secondary  and  implicit  reference  to  the  crucifixion,  such  as  we 
have  met  with  repeatedl}-  before  in  cases  where  the  direct  and  proper  mean- 
ing of  the  words  was  more  extensive. — As  '^p■lD  is  often  applied  elsewhere 
to  correction  by  words,  some  explain  it  to  mean  here  {iistritctit  n,  as  to  the 
means  of  obtaining  peace  with  God.  But  the  stronger  sense  of  chastisement 
or  punishment  not  only  suits  the  context  better,  but  is  really  the  most  con- 
sistent with  the  usage  of  the  verbal  root,  and  of  the  noun  itself,  in  such 
cases  as  Job  v.   17,  Prov.  xxii.  15,  xxiii.  13,  as  well  as  with  the  subse- 


29G  ISAIAH  LIU.  [Vkr.  G. 

qnent  expression  on  him,  which  is  hardly  reconcilable  with  the  supposition 
of  mere  precept  or  example.     Whether  the  word  was  intended  at  the  same 
time,  as  Henp^stenberfT  supposes,  to  suggest  the  idea  of  a  warning  to  others, 
may  be  made  a  question.    The  chastisement  of  peace  is  not  only  that  which 
tends  to  peace,  but  that  by  which  peace  is  procured  directly.     It  is  not,  to 
use  the  words  of  an  extreme  and  zealous  rationalist,  a  chastisement  morally 
salutary  for  us,  nor  one  which  merely  contributes  to  our  safety,  but,  accord- 
ing to  the  parallelism,  one  which  has  accomplished  our  salvation,  and  in 
this  way,  that  it  was  inflicted  not  on  us  but  on  him,  so  that  we  came  ofi" 
safe  and  uninjured.     (Hitzig.)     The  application  of  the  phrase  to  Christ, 
without  express  quotation,  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  New  Testament. 
(See  Eph.   ii.   H-17,  Col.  i.  20,  21.  Hcb.  xiii.  20,  and  compare  Isa. 
ix.   G,   Micah  vi.  T),   Zcch.   i.   13.) — nnnp  is  properly  a  singular,  denoting 
the  tumour  raised  by  scourging,  here  put  collectively  for  stripes,  and  that 
for  suffering  in  general,    but  probably   with   secondary   reference    to  the 
literal  infliction  of  this  punishment  upon  the  Saviour. — NS^?  is  not  a  noun, 
as  Henderson  explains  it,  but  a  passive  verb,  here  used  impersonally,  it  was 
healed  to  us,  the  -137  limiting  the  action  to  a  specific  object.     It  was  healed 
is  a  general  proposition  ;   ivilh  respect  to  us  is  the  specific  limitation.     The 
use  of  the  ?  may  be  otherwise  explained  by  supposing  that  the  verb  has 
hero  the  modified  sense  of  healing  ivas  imparted,  as  in  ver.  11  ?  P^^Vi? 
means  to  impart  righteousness  or  justification.     Healing  is  a  natural  and 
common  figure  for  relief  from  suffering  considered  as  a  wound  or  malady. 
(Compare  chaps.  \i.  10,  xix.  22,  xxx.  2G,  Jer.  viii.  22,  x.xx.  17,  2  Chron. 
vii.  14.)     The  preterite  is  not  used  merely  to  signify  the  certainty  of  the 
event,  but  because  this  effect  is  considered  as  inseparable  from  the  procur- 
ing cause  which  had  been  just  before  described  in  the  historical  or  narra- 
tive form  as  an  event  already  past:  when  he  was  smitten,  we  were  thereby 
healed.     It  is,  therefore,  injurious  to  the  strength  as  well  as  to  the  beauty 
of  the  sentence,  to  translate  with  Henderson,  that  by  his  stripes  we  mif/ht 
be  healed.    The  mere  contingency  thus  stated  is  immeasurably  less  than  the 
positive  assertion  that  li/  /lia  stripes  we  were  healed.     The  same  objection, 
in  a  less  degree,  applies  to  the  common  -ersion,  ue  are  healed,  which  makes 
the  statement  too  indefinite,  and  robs  it  of  its  peculiar  historical  form. — 
Above  thirty  manuscripts  and  as  many  editions  have  U'PvV"  in  the  plural ; 
a  form  which  does  not  occur  elsewhere. — The  hypothesis  that  this  passage 
has  exclusive  reference  to  the  Babylonish  exile,  becomes  absolutely  ludi- 
crous when  it  requires  us  to  understand  the  Prophet  as  hero  saying  that 
the  people  were  healed  (/.  e.  restored  to  their  own  land)  by  the  strijies  of 
the  prophets,  or  by  those  of  true  believers,  or  that  the  old  and  wicked  race 
were  healed   by  the  stripes  of  their  more  devout  successors.     This  last 
hypothesis  of  Hendowerk's,  besides  the  weak  points  which  it  has  in  common 
with  the  others,  involves  two  very  improbable  assumi)tions  :  first,  that  the 
distinction  of  good   and  bad  was  coincident  with  that  of  young  and  old 
aniong  the  exiles  ;  ami  secondly,  that  this  younger  race  was  not  only  better 
than  the  older,  but  endured  more  suffering. 

G.  Alt  we  like  s/ircp  had  gone  astray,  each  to  his  own  tray  wc  had  turned, 
and  Jehovah  laid  on  him  the  iniijuity  of  us  all.  This  verse  describes  the 
occasion,  or  rather  the  necessity  of  tlie  sufferings  mentioned  in  those  before 
it.  It  was  because  men  were  wholly  estranged  from  God,  and  an  atone- 
ment was  required  for  their  reconciliation.  All  we  does  not  mean  all  llie 
Jews  or  all  the  heathen,  but  all  men  wthout  exception.     The  common 


Ver.  6.]  ISAIAH  LUL  297 

version,  have  gone  astraj/,  have  turned,  docs  not  express  the  historical  form 
of  the  original  sufHciently,  but  rather  means  we  have  done  so  up  to  the  pre- 
sent time,  whereas  the  prominent  idea  in  the  Prophet's  mind  is  that  we  had 
done  so  before  Messiah  sutTured.  Noves's  version  we  ivere  goiiuj  astray  is 
ambiguous,  because  it  may  imply  nothing  more  than  an  incipient  estrange- 
ment.— The  figure  of  wandoring,  or  lost  sheep  is  common  in  Scriptvire  to 
denote  alienation  from  God  and  the  misery  which  is  its  necessary  conse- 
quence (see  Ezek.  xxxiv.  5,  Mat.  ix.  36).  The  entire  comparison  is  prob- 
alily  that  of  sheep  without  a  shepherd  (1  Kings  xxii.  17,  Zech.  x.  2).  The 
second  clause  is  understood  by  x\ugusti  as  denoting  selfishness,  and  a  defect 
of  public  spirit,  or  benevolence;  and  this  interpretation  is  admitted  by 
Hongstenberg  as  correct  if  "  taken  in  a  deeper  sense,"  viz.  that  union  among 
men  can  only  spring  from  their  common  union  with  God.  But  this  idea, 
however  just  it  may  be  in  itself,  is  wholly  out  of  place  in  a  comparison  with 
scattered  sheep,  whose  running  off  in  difiereut  directions  does  not  spring 
from  selfishness,  but  from  confusion,  ignorance,  and  incapacity  to  choose 
the  right  path.  A  much  better  exposition  of  the  figure,  although  still 
too  limited,  is  that  of  Theodoret,  who  understands  it  to  denote  the  vast 
variety  of  false  religions,  as  exemplified  by  the  diflerent  idols  worshipped 
in  Egypt,  Phenicia,  Scythia,  and  Greece,  alike  in  nothing  but  the  common 
error  of  departure  from  the  true  God.  E/'  -/.al  hidfo^oi  rr/g  TXav?;;  oi  rgo'^oi, 
'iTuvTii  o/xolug  7QV  ovTa  Ssof  ■/.araXiXoi'xoTig. — The  original  expression  is  like 
the  sheep  (or  collectively  the  flock)  /.  e.  not  sheep  in  general,  but  the  sheep 
that  wander,  or  that  have  no  sheph6rd. — The  idea  of  a  shepherd,  although 
not  expressed,  appears  to  have  been  present  to  the  writer's  mind,  not  only 
in  the  first  clause  but  the  last,  where  the  image  meant  to  be  presented  is 
no  doubt  that  of  a  shepherd  laying  do\^^l  his  life  for  the  sheep.  This  may 
be  fairly  inferred  not  merely  from  the  want  of  connection  which  would 
otherwise  exist  between  the  clauses,  and  which  can  only  be  supplied  in  this 
way,  nor  even  from  the  striking  analogy  of  Zech.  xiii.  7,  where  the  figure 
is  again  used,  but  chiefly  from  the  application  of  the  metaphor,  with  obvious, 
though  tacit,  reference  to  this  part  of  Isaiah,  in  the  New  Testament  to 
Christ's  laying  down  his  life  for  his  people.  (See  John  x.  11-18,  and 
1  Peter  ii.  24,  25.) — The  reading  of  one  manuscript,  J?^3n  for  ^^pn,  is  pro- 
bably an  accidental  variation.  The  meaning  given  to  this  verb  in  the 
margin  of  the  English  Bible  {made  to  meet)  is  not  sustained  by  etymology 
or  usage,  as  the  primitive  vei-b  V^S  does  not  mean  simply  to  come  toge- 
ther, but  always  denotes  some  degree  of  violent  collision,  either  physical, 
as  when  one  body  lights  or  strikes  upon  another,  or  moral,  as  when  one 
person  falls  upon,  i.  e.  attacks  another.  The  secondary  senses  of  the  verb 
are  doubtful  and  of  rare  occuiTence.  (See  above,  on  chap,  xlvii.  3,  and 
below,  on  chap.  Ixiv.  4.)  Kimchi  supposes  the  punishment  of  sin  to  be 
here  represented  as  an  enemy  whom  God  permitted  or  impelled  to  fall 
upon,  or  assail  the  sufferer.  Vitriuga  and  Henderson,  with  much  more 
questionable  taste,  suppose  the  image  to  be  that  of  a  wild  beast  by  which 
the  flock  is  threatened,  and  from  which  it  is  delivered  only  by  the  inter- 
position  and  vicarious  exposure  of  the  shepherd  to  its  fury.  Most  in- 
terpreters appear  to  be  agreed  in  giving  it  a  more  generic  sense.  The 
common  version  (laid  upon  him)  is  objectionable  only  because  it  is  too 
weak,  and  suggests  the  idea  of  a  mild  and  inoflensive  gesture,  whereas 
that  conveyed  by  the  Hebrew  word  is  necessarily  a  violent  one,  ^•iz.  that 
of  causing  to  strike  or  fall,  which  is  fixithfully  expressed  by  Umbreit  {Hess 
fallen),  still  more  closely  by  Ewald  and  De  Wettc  (Hess  troffcn),  and  cor- 


298  ISAIAH  LllL  [Ver.  7. 

rectly  but  less  definitely  by  Geseniiis,  Hengstenberg,  and  others  (war/). 
Amoug  the  ancient  versions  Symmacbus  bus  zaravr^aa/  £co/»j«i',  and 
Jerome  posuit  in  eo,  wbicb  last,  although  it  scarcely  gives  the  full  sense 
of  the  Verb,  retains  that  of  the  preposition,  as  denoting  strictly  in  him, 
t.  e.  not  merely  on  his  head  or  on  his  body,  but  in  his  soul,  or  rather 
in  his  person,  as  expressive  of  the  whole  man.  The  word  PV  does  not 
of  itself  mean  punishment,  but  sin  ;  which,  however,  is  said  to  have  been 
laid  upon  the  Messiah,  only  in  reference  to  its  eflects.  If  vicarious  suf- 
fering can  be  di-scribcd  in  words,  it  is  so  described  in  these  two  vtrses; 
BO  that  the  attempts  to  explain  them  as  denoting  mere  forbearance  or 
participation  in  the  punishment  of  others,  may  be  faii-ly  regarded  as  des- 
perate expeilients  to  make  tlie  passage  applicable  to  the  imaginary  per- 
secutions of  the  Prophets,  or  the  pious  Jews,  or  the  younger  race  during 
the  Babylonish  exile.  The  amount  of  in;^'cnuity  expended  on  these  sophisms 
only  shews  how  artificial  and  devoid  of  solid  basis  the  hypothesis  must 
be  which  require  to  be  thus  supported. — "With  this  and  the  foregoing  verse 
compare  Rom.  iv.  25,  2  Cor.  v.  21,  1  Peter  ii.  22-2'). 

7.  He  teas  oppressed  and  he  humhled  himself,  and  Jw  will  not  open  his 
mouth — as  a  lamh  to  tike  sJ(iu(/hter  is  brought,  and  an  a  sheep  be/ore  its 
shearers  is  dumb — a7ul  he  will  not  open  his  mouth.  Havinj^  explained  the 
occasion  of  Messiah's  suflbrings,  the  Prophet  now  describes  his  patient  en- 
durance of  them.  As  i.**|3  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  rigorous  exaction  of 
debts,  De  Dieu  translates  it  here  cxadiis  est,  Tremellius  exigehatur  poena. 
Lowth  has  the  same  Sense,  but  makes  the  verb  impersonal,  it  was  exacted^ 
and  he  was  made  ansicerable  ;  but  HJIJ  is  not  used  like  the  Latin  re-^pondeo 
as  a  technical  forensic  term.  Van  Der  Palm  explains  the  first  verb,  he  was 
demanded,  i.  e.  by  the  people,  to  be  crucified  ;  but  t'33  does  not  mean 
to  demand  in  general,  its  primary  meaning  is  to  ur;^'e  or  press.  (See 
chap.  iii.  5,  vol.  i.  p.  111.)  The  general  voice  of  the  interpreters  is 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  old  translation,  he  was  oppresscl  or  jwrncrufed. 
— The  next  phrase  has  been  usually  understood  as  a  simple  repetition  of 
the  same  idea  in  other  words.  Thus  the  English  Version  renders  it,  Iw 
itiis  oppressed,  and  he  teas  a/flicted.  Besides  the  tautologv"  of  this  transla- 
tion (which  would  prove  nothing  by  itself),  it  fails  to  represent  the  form  of 
the  original,  in  which  the  pronoun  N-l"  L  introduced  before  the  second 
verb,  and  according  to  usage  must  be  regarded  as  emphatic.  Martini's 
proposition  to  transpose  the  particle,  so  as  to  read  n^VAl  i<"in  ^'i),  is  merely 
an  ingenious  expedient  to  evade  a  ditliculty  of  construction.  Ge-senius 
gives  N-ini.  the  sense  of  although,  and  explains  the  whole  as  meaning  that 
he  was  oppressed  although  before  alliieted,  and  the  same  interpretation  is 
adopted  l.y  Umbreit,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel.  There  does  not  seem  to  bo 
much  force  in  Hengstenberg's  objection,  that  ^iV  as  well  as  L"5J  is  applied 
to  severe  sulferin;^.  Gcsenius's  interpretation  would  be  no  less  admissible 
on  the  supposition  that  the  verbs  are  perfectly  synonymous,  the  distinction 
lying  not  in  the  verbs  themselves,  but  in  the  ohnrhin  which  ho  supplies. 
The  true  objection  is  that  he  does  supply  it,  arbitrarily  referring  the  two 
verbs  to  different  points  of  time,  and  also  that  the  meaning  wliich  he  gives 
VAtV\,  is  forced  and  foreign  fiom  Hebrew  usage.  The  same  objection  lies 
against  Hitzig's  construction  of  the  clause,  he  xoas  oppresmi,  and  although 
persecuted,  opened  not  his  mouth,  which,  moreover,  omits  in  translation  not 
only  the  first  Vav  but  the  second.  Ewald  explains  it  thus:  he  ivas  perse- 
cuted although  he  huwhled  himself.  The  same  reflexive  meaning  had  been 
given  to  npya  by  Koppe,  Jahn,  and  others,  and  appears  to  bo  implied  in 


Ver.  8.J  ISAIAH  LIIL  299 

the  paraplirastic  versions  of  Symmachus  (xa/  aur&c  uT^jxoi/ffe)  and  Jerome 
{quia  ipse  voluit).  Supposing  this  sense  of  the  verb  to  be  admissible,  by 
fur  the  simplest  and  most  natural  construction  is  to  give  i^-in]  its  ordinary 
sense  as  a  conjunction  and  emphatic  pronoun,  he  was  oppressed  and  he 
himself  suhnilted  to  affliction,  or  allowed  himself  to  be  afflicted.  There  is 
then  no  tautology  nor  any  arbitrary  difference  of  tense  assumed  between 
the  two  verbs,  while  the  whole  sense  is  good  in  itself  and  in  perfect  agree- 
ment with  the  context.  The  same  sense,  substantially,  is  put  upon  the 
clause  by  Beck's  explanation  of  ^^'^  as  the  first  person  plural  [loir  erwiesen 
uns  ti/rannisch)  ;  which  is  favoured  by  the  obvious  opposition  of  the 
first  and  thu'd  person  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  by  the  use  of  ^^l^ 
in  this.  All  other  writers  scorn  agreed,  however,  that  '^'»^.  is  the  third 
person  singular  of  Ni|)hal.  All  interpreters,  perhaps  without  excep- 
tion, render  nf)?;*  as  a  propter  or  a  present,  which  is  no  doubt  substan- 
tially correct,  as  the  whole  passage  is  descriptive.  It  seems  desirable, 
however,  to  retain,  as  far  as  possible,  the  characteristic  form  of  the  original, 
especially  as  it  is  very  hard  to  account  for  the  z-epeated  use  of  the  future 
here,  if  nothing  more  was  intended  than  might  have  been  expressed  b}'  the 
pra9ter.  At  all  events,  the  strict  sense  of  the  form  shouLl  bo  retained,  if  it 
can  be  done  without  injury  to  the  sense,  which  is  certainly  the  case  here, 
as  we  have  only  to  suppose  that  the  writer  suddenly  but  naturally  changes 
his  position  from  that  of  historical  retrospection,  to  that  of  actual  participa- 
tion in  the  passing  scene,  and,  as  if  he  saw  the  victim  led  to  the  slaughter, 
says,  "  he  w^ill  not  open  his  mouth."  There  is  no  need,  therefore  of  sup- 
posing with  Hitzig  that  the  \  though  separated  from  the  verb,  exerts  a 
conversive  influence  upon  it.  The  repetition  of  the  same  words  at  the  end, 
so  f\ir  from  being  even  a  rhetorical  defect,  is  highly  gi-aphic  and  impressive. 
In  the  intermediate  clause,  we  may  either  suppose  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative, 
equally  common  in  Hebrew  and  in  English  (like  a  lamb  which  is  led),  or 
suppose  the  preposition  to  be  used  as  a  conjunction  {as  a  lavib  is  led), 
without  eflect  upon  the  meaning  of  the  sentence.  The  "i  before  the  last 
clause  is  not  the  sign  of  the  apodosis,  nor  need  it  be  translated  so,  the  form 
adopted  in  the  Septuagint  version  {ovru;  ovx  avolyii  rh  erofia),  for  the 
purpose  of  shewing  that  the  words  refer  to  the  subject  of  the  first  clause, 
and  not  to  the  sheep  or  lamb,  as  Luther  and  Gesenius  assume,  in  violation 
of  the  syntax  (?nT  being  feminine)  and  the  poetical  structure  of  the  sentence 
which  depends  materially  on  the  repetition  of  the  same  words  in  the  same 
sense  and  application  as  before.  Besides  those  places  where  Christ  is  called 
the  Lamb  of  God  (c.  g.  John  i.  20  ;  1  Peter  i.  18,  19  ;  Acts  viii.  32,  35), 
there  seems  to  be  reference  to  this  description  of  his  meek  endurance  in 
1  Peter  ii.  23. — It  miglit  seem  almost  incredible,  if  it  were  not  merely  one 
out  of  a  thousand  such  examples,  that  Vitringa  formally  propounds  the 
question,  (piando  tonsus  sit  Christus  Dominus  ?  and  gravely  answers  when 
he  was  shorn  of  his  prerogatives  and  rights  by  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim.  As 
if  there  were  no  difterence  (or  as  if  such  a  man  as  Vitringa  could  not  see 
it),  between  saying  he  was  silent  and  submissive  like  a  sheep  before  its 
shearers,  and  saying  he  was  silent  and  submissive  before  his  sheai'ors  Uke 
a  sheep. 

8.  From  distress  and  from  judgment  he  teas  taken;  and  in  his  generation 
who  will  thinh,  that  he  ivas  cut  off  from  the  land  of  the  living,  for  the  trans- 
gression of  mg  people,  {as)  a  cttrsi;  for  them  ?  Every  clause  of  this  verse 
has  been  made  the  subject  of  dispute  among  interpreters.  The  first  question 
is,  whether  the  particle  at  the  beginning  denotes  the  occasion  or  the  cause, 


800  ISAIAH  LI  1 1.  [Ver.  8. 

as  nil  agree  that  it  does  before  y??'9  in  the  last  clause,  or  whether  it  is  to  bo 
taken  in  its  ordinar}'  sense  of  from.  This  is  connected  with  another  question, 
vi/.  whether  (ahen  means  delivered,  or  taken  up.  or  taken  away  to  execu- 
tion, or  taken  out  of  life.  It  is  also  disputed  whether  "1>^  means  imprison- 
ment, or  oppression  and  distress  in  general,  nnd  also  wliether  tSBv't?  means 
judicial  process,  sentence,  or  punishment.  From  the  combination  of  these 
various  explanations,  have  resulted  several  distinct  interpretations  of  the 
whole  clause.  Thus  the  text  of  the  English  Version  has,  he  was  taken 
from  prison  and  from  judgment  ;  the  margin  of  the  same,  he  was  taken 
away  by  distress  and  judgment ;  Heugstenberg  and  others,  he  was  taken 
(to  execution)  by  an  oppressive  judgment.  Most  of  the  older  writers  un- 
derstand these  words  as  descriptive  of  his  exaltation — from  distress  and 
judgment  he  was  freed,  or  taken  up  to  heaven.  So  Jerome  and  J.  H. 
Michaelis.  Gesenius,  Riickert,  and  Umbreit  also,  understand  it  to  mean 
that  he  was  freed  from  his  sufl'erings  by  death.  To  this  interpretation 
Heugstenberg  objects,  that  the  account  of  the  Messiah's  exaltation  begins 
in  ver.  10,  while  the  intervening  verse  still  relates  to  the  circumstances  oi 
his  death  ;  and  also  that  the  reference  of  nf??  to  a  violent  death  is  here  de- 
termined by  the  parallel  expression,  "he  was  cut  ofi"  from  tlie  land  of  the 
living."  Ho  might  have  added  that  even  in  Gen.  v.  24,  and  2  Kings  ii, 
I),  10,  the  word  is  used  in  reference  to  a  singular  departure  from  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature.  Luz/.atto  and  Henderson  give  IP  the  privative 
sense  of  wKhottl,  and  understand  the  clause  to  mean  that  he  was  taken  off 
without  restraint  or  authority.  The  same  construction  seems  to  have  been 
anticipated  by  Zwingle,  who  pharaphrases  the  expression  thus,  indictd 
causa  citnuiuc  judicium. — In  the  next  clause,  the  int<?rpretation  turns  upon 
the  question  whether  li^  means  life,  dwelling,  posterity,  or  contemporaries, 
and  the  verb  to  think  or  speak.  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Vitringa  understand 
the  clause  to  mean,  who  can  declare  the  length  of  his  life  hereafter  ? 
Kimchi  and  Heugstenberg  explain  it  to  moan,  who  can  declare  his  posterity 
or  spiritual  seed  '?  To  this  it  is  objected  that  the  verb  requires  a  connective 
particle  before  its  object,  and  that  Christ  is  not  called  the  father,  but  the 
brother  of  his  people,  and  tliat  I'l"^  has  this  sense  only  in  the  plural.  Cleri- 
cus  supposes  it  to  mean,  who  can  worthily  describe  his  course  of  life  ? 
liut  this  sense  of  li^  is  not  sustained  by  usage.  Kosenmiiller,  Gesenius, 
and  others  follow  Storr  in  making  iliTD^  an  absolute  nominativi' — as  to 
his  generation  (i.  e.  his  contemporaries),  who  considered  it,  or  can-d  for  it  ? 
To  tliis  construction  Heugstenberg  objects  that  ri^  si-ldom  if  ever  denotes 
the  subject  of  the  verb,  and  also  that  nniL"^.  is  th  n  left  without  an  object.' 
Neither  of  these  objections  lies  against  Ewaltl's  modification  of  this  s;ime 
exposition,  which  makes  ri^  a  preposition,  and  contimies  the  interrogation 
through  the  sentence — in  (or  among)  his  generation  (i.  c.  his  contempo- 
raries), who  considered  that  he  was  cut  off  from  the  laud  of  the  living  ?  etc. 
Hollmann's  extravagant  interpretation  of  the  clause  as  meaning,  who  cares 
for  his  dwelling,  i.  r.  where  he  is  ?  deserves  no  refutation. — 1T35,  according 
to  some  writers,  is  rniployed  in  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  (5,  and  Lam.  iii.  T)!,  in  refer- 
ence to  a  natural  and  cpiiet  death  ;  but  Hcngstenberg  maintains  that  even 
thtre  a  violent  departure  is  implied. — I'aulus  infers  from  the  singular  fonn 
^PV,  that  Jehovidi  here  begins  to  speak  again  ;  but  llingsteid»erg  explains 
it  as  equivalent  to  us,  and  a  similar  use  of  the  singular  form  by  a  phirality 
of  BiH-akers  is  exemplified  in  1  Sam.  v.  10,  Zech.  viii.  21. — Of  the  last 
words  iD<  yp)  there  arc  several  interpretations.  Aben  Ezra  and  Abarbenel. 
followed  by  Roscnmiiller  and  Gesenius,  njiply  them  to  the  sufferer  here 


Ver.  9.  J  ISAIAJI  LI  1 1.  301 

dcscribeil  as  meaiiiuj^,  he  was  smitten,  and  infi-r  from  the  use  of  the  plural 
suflix  that  the  subject  of  the  chapter  is  collective.  Others  adopt  the  same 
sense  and  application  of  the  words,  but  deny  the  inference,  upon  the  ffround 
that  io,  thouj^h  properly  a  plural  suffix,  is  not  uufi-equently  used  for  a 
sinprular,  as  the  very  same  form  is  in  Ethiopic,  This  groimd  is  also  main- 
tained by  Ewald  in  his  Grammar.  Henoisteuberg  admits  that  the  pronoun 
is  here  plural,  but  refers  it  to  the  people,  and  supplies  a  relative — for  the 
trausf^ression  of  my  people  who  were  smitten,  literally  to  whom  there  was 
a  stroke  or  punishment,  i.  e.  due  or  appointed.  Ewald,  without  supposing 
an  ellipsis,  renders  it,  a  stroke  fi)r  them,  /.  c.  smitten  in  their  place  and  for 
their  benefit.  Cocceius  gives  the  same  sense  to  the  words,  but  applies 
them  very  diti'erently  as  a  description  of  the  people,  phija  ipsis  adhaeret, 
i.e.  impuri  sunt.  (See  the  use  of  Vi3  in  Exod.  xi.  1.) — According  to 
Hendewerk,  the  land  of  the  livin;/  is  the  Holy  Land,  and  the  ver.se  is  de- 
scriptive of  the  Babylonish  exile.  "  By  a  divine  judgment  was  the  people 
taken  away,  and  yet  who  can  declare  its  future  increase  ?  It  was  cut  oii* 
from  its  own  laud,  for  the  transgression  of  the  fathers  were  the  children 
smitten."  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  writer  who  invented  this  inteq^reta- 
tion  should  sneer  at  the  Messianic  exposition  as  extravagant  and  groundless. 
The  reading  rilw,  which  appears  to  be  implied  in  the  Septuagint  Version, 
and  is  adopted  by  Houbigant  andLowth,  is  wholly  without  critical  authority, 
or  intrinsic  worth  to  recommend  it. 

9.  And  he  gave  with  wicked  (men)  his  grave,  and  laith  a  rich  (man)  iii 
his  death  ;  because  (or  although)  he  had  done  no  violence,  and  no  deceit  (was) 
in  his  mouth.  The  second  member  of  the  first  clause  is  thus  translated 
b}'  Martini  :  tumuhnn  sepulchralem  cum  violcntis  ;  which  suppposes  Vni03 
to  be  the  plural  of  iips,  a  height  or  high  place,  here  put  for  a  monumental 
mound  or  hillock.  The  same  interpretation  is  approved  by  Kennicott  and 
Jubb.  But  as  the  plural  niM  retains  its  first  vowel  when  followed  by  a 
suffi.K  or  another  noun  (Deut.  xxxii.  29,  Micah  iii.  12),  Ewald  adopts  the 
pointing  *'n'"l?D3,  which  is  found  in  three  mannscripts ;  but  it  still  remains 
impossible  to  prove  from  usage  any  such  meaning  of  'ipil.  Thenius  goes 
further,  and  reads  Vri'ni3.  And  all  this  for  the  sake  of  a  more  perfect 
parallelism,  although  the  common  text  atiords  a  perfectly  good  sense,  viz. 
in  his  death,  i.  e.  after  it,  as  in  Lev.  xi.  81,  1  Kings  xii.  31,  Esther  ii.  7, 
and  the  only  ditficulty  is  the  one  presented  by  the  plural  form,  which  is 
surely  not  so  serious  as  to  require  its  removal  by  an  arbitrary  change  of 
text.  It  is  not  even  necessary  to  explain  it  with  Jarchi  as  denotin<r  all 
kinds  of  death,  or  with  Abarbeuel  as  implying  a  collective,  not  an  indivi- 
dual subject.  It  is  much  more  natural  to  assume,  with  Hit/ig,  that  the 
suffix  is  assimilated  to  the  apparent  plural  termination  ni,  or  that  it  is 
simply  a  case  of  poetic  variation,  as  in  Ezek.  xxviii.  8,  10. — Rosenmiiller's 
version  is,  he  gave  himself  up  to  the  wicked  to  be  buried,  or  he  left  his 
burial  to  the  wicked.  But  besides  the  forced  construction  here  assumed, 
this  explanation  leaves  vnio?  unexplained,  and  does  not  agree  with  what 
is  afterwards  asserted,  that  he  did  no  wrong,  kc. — Rabbi  Jonah,  as  quoted 
in  the  Michlal  Jophi,  explains  TC'V  to  mean  a  wicked  man  ;  and  this  ex- 
planation is  adopted  by  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Gesenius,  who  regard  the 
word  as  suggesting  the  accessory  idea  of  one  who  sets  his  heart  upon  his 
■wealth,  or  puts  his  trust  in  it,  or  makes  an  unlawful  use  of  it.  This  is  so 
arbitrary,  that  Martini  and  some  later  writers  abandon  the  Hebrew  usage 
altogether,  and  derive  the  sense  of  wicked    from  the   Arabic  root    Xz. 


302  ISAIAH  JAIL  l^'kr.  9. 

But  (his  is  doubly  xmtcnable ;  first,  because  the  Hebrew  usage  cannot  be 
postponed  to  the  Arabic  analogy  without  extreme  necessity,  which  does  not 
here  exist ;  and  secondly,  because  the  best  authorities  exhibit  no  such 
meaning  of  the  Arabic  word  itself.  Ewald,  aware  of  this,  and  yet  deter- 
mined to  obtain  the  same  sense,  effects  his  purpose  with  his  usual  bold- 
ness, by  changing  1*?"^  into  p^VV — a  convenient  word  invented  for  the 
purpose.  Beck,  with  scarcely  less  violence,  explains  it  as  an  orthographi- 
cal variation  of  V^i^  (chap.  xlix.  25),  It  may  appear  surprising  that  this 
forced  imposition  of  a  new  and  foreign  meaning  on  a  word  so  familiar 
should  be  thus  insisted  on.  Luther  and  Calvin  no  doubt  simply  followed 
the  rabbinical  tradition  ;  but  the  lator  writers  have  a  deeper  motive  for 
pursuing  a  course  which  in  other  circumstances  they  would  boldly  charge 
upon  the  gi'oat  lleformers'  ignorance  of  Hebrew.  That  motive  is  the  wish 
to  do  away  with  the  remai'kable  coincidence  between  the  circumstances  of 
our  Saviour's  burial  and  the  language  of  this  verse,  as  it  has  commonly 
been  understood  since  Cappellus.  This  intoiiiretation,  as  expressed  by 
Hengstenberg,  makes  the  verso  mean  that  they  appointed  him  his  grave 
with  the  wicked,  but  that  in  his  death  he  really  reposed  with  a  rich  man, 
viz.  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  who  is  expressly  so  called,  Mat.  xxvii,  57.  The 
indefinite  construction  of  the  verb,  and  the  sense  thus  put  upon  it,  are  in 
perfect  accordance  with  usage.  (See  e.g.  Ps.  Ixxii.  15,  Eccles.  ii.  21, 
Gen.  XV.  IH,  Isa.  Iv.  4,  Jer.  i.  4.)  Even  Aben  Ezra  explains  gave  by 
adding,  i.e.  in  intention.  It  is  also  possible  to  make  ''^V.  the  subject  of 
the  verb,  but  wholly  unnecessary.  Some  refer  it  to  Jehovah,  and  suppose 
the  sense  to  be  that  he  appeared  to  assign  him  his  grave  with  the  wicked. 
Malefactors  were  either  left  unburied,  or  disgraced  by  a  promiscuous  inter- 
ment in  an  unclean  place ;  a  usage  explicitly  asserted  by  Josephus  and 
Maimonidcs.  As  the  Messiah  was  to  die  like  a  criminal,  he  might  have 
expected  to  be  buried  like  one ;  and  his  exemption  from  this  posthumous 
dishonour  was  occasioned  by  a  special  providential  interference.  To  the 
different  interpretations  which  have  now  been  given  of  this  first  clause, 
may  be  added  two  as  curiositicp.  The  first  is  that  of  Jerome,  who  makes 
riN  the  sign  of  the  accusative,  and  thus  translates  the  whole :  (hihit  inipios 
pro  sviiultura  ct  divitcm  pro  vioite  sua.  The  other,  that  of  Hoffmann, 
they  (my  people)  treated  him  (my  servant)  lihe  a  wealthy  tyrant. — ?V  (for 
"Hr'^?  'V)  is  properly  a  causative  particle,  ecpiivalent  to  for  that,  or  hecnuse  ; 
but  most  inteqireters  regard  it  as  equivalent  to  allhoiii/h,  which  is  more 
agreeable  to  our  idiom  in  this  connection.  Knobel  observes,  with  groat 
naive'c,  that  the  reference  of  this  verse  to  the  burial  of  Christ  has  found 
its  way  into  the  exposition  of  the  passage  in  connection  with  its  general 
application  to  that  subject ;  to  which  we  may  add,  that  it  can  only  find  its 
way  out  in  connection  with  a  wish  to  get  rid  of  that  unwi'lcomc  applica- 
tion. At  the  same  time  it  must  be  obsen-ed,  that  even  if  "I'^'y  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  wicked,  although  we  lose  the  striking  allusion  to  the  burial  of 
Christ  in  the  sepulchre  of  Joseph,  the  verFc  is  still  applicable  to  his  burial, 
as  the  last  clause  then  means,  like  the  first,  that  they  appointed  him  his 
grave  with  malefactors..  Clericus  and  Kennicott  propose  to  transpose  ^"I3p 
and  vn^D3,  because  there  seems  to  be  an  incongruity  in  saying  that  he  made 
his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  was  with  the  rich  in  his  death,  when,  accord- 
ing to  the  histt>r}',  he  died  with  the  wicked,  and  was  buried  with  the  rich. 
But  this  apparent  difficulty  rests  upon  a  false  interpretation  both  of  jP?  and 
Vni03.  There  is  no  need  of  following  in  detail  the  laborious  attempt  to 
reconcile  this  verse,  even  after  some  of  its  expressions  have  been  wrested 


Ver.  10.]  ISAIAH  LIII.  303 

for  the  purpose,  with  the  supposition  that  the  subject  of  the  prophecy  is 
Israel  in  exile,  and  that  the  burial  here  spoken  of  is  merely  political  and 
civil,  as  in  chap.  xxv.  8,  xxvi.  19. 

10.  And  Jehovah  teas  pleased  to  crush  (or  hruisc)  him,  he  put  him  to 
grief  {ox  made  him  sick)  ;  if  {or  ivhcn)  his  soul  shall  make  an  (/firing  for 
sin,  he  shall  see  [his)  seed,  he  shall  2>i'olou(j  [his)  days,  and  the  2jlt'asure  <f 
Jehovah  in  his  hand  shall  prosper.  Here  begins  the  account  of  the  Mes- 
siah's exaltation.  All  the  previous  suiferings  were  to  have  an  end  in  the 
erection  of  God's  kingdom  upon  earth.  As  the  first  clause  is  in  contrast 
with  the  last  of  ver.  9,  it  may  be  read,  and  {yet)  Jehovah  was  pleased,  i.  e. 
notwithstanding  the  Messiah's  perfect  innocence.  The  sense  is  not,  as 
Barnes  expresses  it,  that  Jehovah  was  j^leased  loith  his  being  crushed,  which 
might  imply  that  he  was  crushed  by  ani,ther,  but  that  Jehovah  was  pleased 
himself  to  crush  or  bruise  him,  since  the  verb  is  not  a  passive  but  an  active 
one.  Luzzatto  makes  1i>|'!l  an  adjective  used  as  a  noun,  his  crushed  or 
afflicted  one,  coiitritns  suns.  Hitzig  makes  ynn  a  noun  with  the  article,  it 
pleased  JcJtovah  that  disease  should  crush  him.  But  most  interpreters 
appear  to  be  agreed  that  the  first  is  the  Piel  infinitive  of  *^5?)  ^^^  ^he  last 
the  Hipliil  preterite  of  n?n,  strictly  meaning  he  made  sick,  but  here  used, 
like  the  cognate  noun  in  vers.  3,  4,  to  denote  distress  or  sufiering  in  general. 
Martini  and  Gcsenius  make  IX?'?  the  object  of  '''^Dfj,  it  pleased  Jehovah  to 
make  his  wound  sick,  i  e.  to  aggravate  his  wounds,  or  wound  him  sorely. 
This  construction,  although  somewhat  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  Micah 
vi.  13  (compare  Nahum  iii.  19),  does  violence  to  both  words,  and  is  incon- 
sistent with  their  collocation  in  the  sentence.  Jahn  accounts  for  the  future 
form  of  D''L"ri  by  supplying  "ip^^*},  and  regarding  what  follows  as  the  words 
of  Jehovah,  who  is  afterwards  spoken  of,  however,  in  the  third  person. 
But  this  is  not  unusual  even  in  cases  where  Jehovah  is  undoubtedly  the 
speaker.  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  agi-ee  with  De  Dieu  and  other  early 
writers  in  explaining  Cw^'JJl  as  the  second  person,  which  is  also  given  in  the 
text  of  the  English  Version  {lohen  thou  shall  make,  &e.) ;  but  as  Jehovah 
is  nowhere  else  directly  addressed  in  this  whole  context,  the  construction  in 
the  margin  (^when  his  soul  shall  make)  is  the  one  not  commonly  adopted. 
Hengstenberg,  in  his  Christology,  explains  1^"?5  as  a  mere  periphrasis  for 
X-in  ;  but  he  may  be  considered  as  retracting  this  opinion  in  his  Commen- 
tary on  Ps.  iii.  3,  where  he  denies  that  the  expression  is  ever  so  employed. 
Vitrlnga  understands  it  here  to  signify  that  the  oblation  was  a  voluntary 
one.  It  seems  more  natural,  however,  to  explain  it  as  referring  the  obla- 
tion to  the  life  itself  which  was  really  the  thing  offered  ;  just  as  the  blood 
of  Christ  is  said  to  cleanse  from  all  sin  (1  John  i.  7),  meaning  that  Christ 
cleanses  by  his  blood,  i.e.  his  expiatory  death. — Dl?'X  primaril}'  signifies  a 
trespass  or  ollence,  and  secondarily  a  trcspass-ofibriug.  In  the  law  of 
Moses  it  is  technically  used  to  designate  a  certain  kind  of  sacrifice,  nearly 
allied  to  the  riNtpn  or  sin-oflering,  and  yet  very  carefully  distinguished  from 
it,  although  archajologists  have  never  j-et  been  able  to  determine  the  precise 
distinction,  and  a  learned  modern  rabbi,  Samuel  Luzzatto,  expresses  his 
conviction  that  they  difl'ered  only  in  the  mode  of  offering  the  blood.  The 
word  is  here  used  not  with  specific  reference  to  this  kind  of  oblation,  but  as 
a  generic  term  for  expiatory  sacrifice.  The  use  of  analogous  expressions  in 
the  New  Testament  will  be  clear  .from  a  comparison  of  Rom.  iii.  25,  viii.  3, 
2  Cor.  V.  21,  1  John  ii.  2,  iv.  10,  Heb.  ix.  14.  In  the  case  last  quoted, 
as  in  that  before  ug,  Christ  is  represented  as  offering  himself  to  God. — 


804  ISAIAH  LI  1 1.  [Veu.  11. 

As  the  terms  used  to  describe  the  atonement  are  borrowed  from  the  cere- 
moninl  institutions  of  the  old  economy,  so  those  employed  in  describinfr  the 
reward  of  the  Messiah's  sufferinj^s  are  also  drawn  from  iheocratical  associa- 
tions. Hence  the  promise  of  long  life  and  a  numerous  offspring,  which,  of 
course,  are  applicubJe  only  in  a  figurative  spiritual  sense.  The  Septuagiut 
and  Vulgate,  followed  by  Lowth,  connect  the  two  successive  members  of 
the  clause  as  forming  only  one  promise  [he  shall  see  a  seed  irhicli  shall  pro- 
long  their  days).  The  separate  construction  is  not  only  simpler,  but 
requisite  in  order  to  express  the  full  sense  of  the  promise,  which  was 
literally  given  and  fulfilled  t:>  Job  in  both  its  parts  (Job  xlii.  10),  and  in 
its  spiritual  sense  is  frequently  applied  to  Christ  {e.g.  Heb.  vii,  16,  25, 
Rev.  i.  18).  The  seed  here  mentioned  is  correctly  identified  by  Hengsten- 
berg  and  others  with  the  mighty,  whom  he  is  described  as  sprinkling  in 
chap.  Hi.  lij,  and  as  spoiling  in  ver.  13  bt-low,  whom  he  is  depicted  in 
ver.  11  as  justifying,  in  ver.  5  as  representing,  in  ver.  12  as  interceding 
for.  They  are  called  his  seed,  as  they  are  elsewhere  called  the  sons  of 
God  (Gen.  vi.  2),  as  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  were  called  their  sous 
(1  Kings  ii.  25),  and  as  Christians  are  to  this  day  in  the  East  called  the 
offspiing  or  family  of  the  Messiah. — n7y.'  does  not  refer  to  past  time, 
as  Martini  explains  it  {felicisshne  exccutus  est),  but  to  the  future,  into 
which  the  glorious  reward  of  the  Messiah  is  and  must  be  considered  as 
extending. 

11.  I'rom  the  labour  of  hit  soul  (or  life)  he  shall  see,  he  shall  be  satisjied : 
by  his  hnoirledge  shall  my  sercant,  {as)  a  righteous  one,  give  righteousness  tu 
many,  and  their  iniquities  he  trill  bear.  In  tliis  verse  Jehovah  is  ag'oin 
directly  introduced  as  speaking.  The  IP  at  the  beginning  is  explained  by 
Gesenius,  Hit/ig,  and  Maurcr,  as  a  particle  of  lime,  after  the  labour  of  his 
soul,  like  the  Latin  al  itinere.  Oihers  explain  it  from,  implying  freedom 
or  deliverance.  Knobel  makes  it  mean  without,  which  yields  the  same 
sense.  Most  interpreters  follow  the  Vulgate  in  making  it  denote  the 
efficient  or  procuring  cause  :  Pro  eo  ifuod  laboravit  anima  ejus.  The  Eng- 
lish Version  makes  it  partitive ;  but  this  detracts  from  the  force  of  the 
expression,  and  implies  that  he  should  only  see  a  portion  of  the  fruit  of 
his  labours.  The  allusion  to  the  pains  of  parturition,  which  some  English 
writers  find  here,  has  no  foundation  in  the  Hebrew  text,  but  only  in  the 
ambiguity  of  the  common  version,  which  here  employs  the  old  word  tra- 
vail, not  in  its  specific  but  its  general  sense  of  toil  or  labour.  The 
Hebrew  word  includes  the  ideas  of  exertion  and  of  suffering  as  its  conse- 
quence. J.  D.  Michaelis  understands  the  clause  as  meaning,  "  from  his 
hibour  he  shall  joyfully  look  up  ;"  but  there  is  no  suflicient  authority  for 
this  inteq>r»tation  of  the  verb,  which  simply  means  to  see,  and  must  be 
construed  with  an  object  either  expressed  or  understood.  This  object  is 
supposed  by  Kimchi  to  be  gootl  in  general  (13  y3t'*1  3113  HNT) ;  l,y  Jerome, 
seed,  as  in  the  foregoing  verse ;  by  Hengstenberp,  the  whole  blessing  tliere 
promised.  Abarbenel  supposes  the  two  parts  of  that  promise  to  be  specially 
referred  to,  "he  shall  sec  his  seed,  be  shall  be  satisfied  with  days,"  a 
common  Scriptural  expression.  (Gen.  xxv.  8,  xxxv.  21).) — 1*3^'  means  to 
be  satisfied  not  in  the  sense  of  being  contented,  but  in  that  of  leing 
filled  or  abundantly  supplied.  It  is  applied  to  spiritual,  no  less  than 
to  temporal  enjoyments.  (Ps.  xvii.  15,  cxxiii.  8,  Jer.  xxxi.  11.)  Clericus 
and  Ilengstenlnrg  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  processes  of  agriculture,  and 
the  abundant  produce  of  the  earth.  Some  interjireters  regard  this  as  a 
case  of  hcndiudys,  in  which  the  one  word  simply  qualiiles  the  other ;  he 


Ver.  11.]  ISAIAH  Llll.  305 

shall  see  be  shall  be  satisfied,  i.e.  he  shall  abandantly  sec,  or  see  to  his 
heart's  content.     Maurer  adopts  this  construction,  and  moreover  connects 
inyna   with  what   goes  before,  and  gives   n^7'  the  sense  of  seeing  with 
delight :  mirifice  Icctahitur  sajjientid  sua.     Martini  has  the  same  construc- 
tion, but  explains  '^^V'3  to  mean  the  knowledge  of  God,  i.e.  piety  or  true 
religion.     But  as  Jehovah  is  himself  the  speaker,  Jahn  refers  the  suffix  to 
Messiah,  and  gives  the  phrase  a  passive  sense,  "he  shall  be  satiated  with 
the  knowledge  of  himself,"  r.  e.   abundantly  enjoy  the  happiness  of  being 
recognised  by  others  as  their  highest  benefoctor.      But  this  is  neither  a 
natural  construction  nor  consistent  with" the  accents.     The  explanation  of 
D]n,  as  meaning  doctrine,  is  entirely  without  foundation  in   usage.     The 
only  satisfactorv  construction  is  the  passive  one,  which  makes  the  phrase 
mean,  by  tlie  knowledge  of  him  upon  the  part  of  others  ;  and  this  is  deter- 
mined by  the  whole  connection  to  mean  practical  experimental  knowledge, 
involving  faith  and  a  self-appropriation  of  the  Messiah's  righteousness,  the 
effect  of  which  is  then  expressed  in  the  following  words. — Gesenius  gives 
i5*'ilVn  the  sense  of  converting  to  the  true  religion,  or  tuming  to  righteous- 
uess,  as  in  Dan.  xii.  3.     But  that  justification  in  the  strict  forensic  sense 
is  meant,  may  be  argued  from  the  entire  context,  in  which  the  Messiah 
appears  not  as  a  Prophet  or  a  Teacher,  but  a  Priest  and  a  Sacrifice,  and 
also  from  the  parallel  expression  in  this  very  verse,  (Uid  their  iniquities  he 
uill  bear.     The  construction  with  ?.  Cocceius,  Hengstenberg,  and  Maurer 
explain,  by  giving  to  the  verb  the  sense  of  bestowing  or  imparting  right- 
eousness, in  which  way  other  active  verbs  are  construed  elsewhere.     (See 
for  example,  chap.  xiv.  3,  Gen.  xlv.  7,  2  Sam.  iii.  30.)     Another  solution 
of  the  syntax  is  afforded  by  taking  ?  in  its  strict  sense  as  denoting  general 
relation,  and  the  verb  as  meaning  to  perform  the  act  of  justification,  not  in 
the  general,  but  in  reference  to  certain  objects — he  shall  be  a  justifier  with 
respect  to  many.     In  the  next  clause  Lowth  omits  p'''^'^  because  it  stands 
before  the  substantive,  which  he  pronounces  an  absurd  solecism.     Gesenius 
supposes  the  adjective  to  be  prefixed,  because  it  is  peculiarly  emphatic. 
Hengstenberg  goes  fiu-ther  and  supposes  it  to  be  used  as  a  noun,  the  right- 
eous one,  my  servant.     But  as  this  would  seem  to  require  the  article,  it  is 
perhaps  better  to    explain  P^'I'V  with   Ewald,   as   a  righteous  person   {als 
Gerechter)  which  idea.  Maurer  thus  expresses  paraphrastically,_/'or  »(^  jrr- 
vant  is   righteous.     Martini's  explanation  of  the  clause  as  meaning,   the 
Saviour  my  serrant  shall  save  many,  has  met  with  little  fiivour,  even  among 
those  who  adopt  an  analogous  explanation  of  P^V  and  ■^i^^V  elsewhere. 
According  to  Beck  the  sense  of  the  whole  clause  is,  "  by  his  knowledge  of 
God  he  shall  justify  himself,  or  shew  himself  righteous  ;  righteous  is  my 
servant  for  many,  /.  e.  for  their  benefit." — All  mistake  and  doubt  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  justification  here  intended,  or  of  the  healing  mentioned  in 
ver.  0,  or  of  the  cleansing  mentioned  in  chap.  Iii.  15,  is  precluded  by  the 
addition  of  the  words,  and  he  shall  bear  their  iniquiti^'S.     The  introduction 
of  the  pronoun  makes  a  virtual  antithesis,  suggesting  the  idea  of  exchange 
or  mutual  substitution.     They  shall  receive  his  righteousness,  and  he  shall 
bear  their  burdens.     One  part  of  the  doctrine  taught  is  well  expressed  by 
Jerome  :  et  iniquitates  eorum  ipse  j^ortabit,  qiias  illi  portare  non  poterant, 
et  qitorum  poudere  opprimebantur.     The  whole  is  admirably  paraphrased 
by  Calvin  :  L'hristus  justificat  homines  dando  ipsis  justitiam  suam,  et  vicissim 
in  se  siiscipit  peccata  ipsorum^  ut  ca  expiet. —  The  preterite  sense  given  to 
73ip*  by  Martini  and  others  is  entirely  arbitrary  and  rejected  by  the  later 

VOL.  II.  u 


806  ISAIAH  LI  1 1.  [Ver.  12. 

Germans  as  forbidden  by  the  futures  which  precede  and  follow,  all  referring 
to  the  state  of  exaltation.  Gesenius,  however,  thou;^'h  he  makes  the  ex- 
pression future,  extenuates  it  by  explaining  it  to  mean  that  he  shall  make 
their  burden  lighter  by  his  doctrine,  and  by  promoting  their  moral  improve- 
ment. But  this  is  at  once  inconsistent  with  the  context,  and  with  his  own 
interpretation  of  the  fourth  verse,  where  he  understands  the  similar  expres- 
sions as  referring  to  vicarious  atonement,  while  Hitzig  is  guilty  of  the 
same  inconsistency,  but  in  a  reversed  order,  making  this  verse  teach  the 
doctrine  and  the  other  not. — lu  order  to  do  justice  to  the  theories  which 
represent  this  passage  as  a  prophecy  of  the  return  from  exile,  it  should 
here  be  mentioned  that  Maurer  understands  this  verse  as  meaning  that  the 
pious  Jews  should  not  refuse  to  share  the  punishment  incurred  by  their 
ungodly  brethren,  and  Luzzatto  that  they  should  endure  with  patience  the 
maltreatment  and  misconduct  of  the  world  around  them.  As  for  Hende- 
werk,  he  boldly  denies  that  P^^V*  is  used  in  a  forensic  sense,  or  that  T'3p.'' 
means  to  hear  in  any  other  sense  than  that  of  the  Latin  phrase  toUere 
morbiim  or  dolores.  Knobel  sums  up  his  exposition  of  the  verse  by  saying 
that  the  mavif  are  without  doubt  the  heathen  who  should  be  converted, 
and  to  whom  the  Jews  sustained  the  same  relation  as  a  prophet  or  a  priest 
to  laymen. 

12.  Therefore  will  I  divide  to  liivi  among  the  viany,  and  icith  the  stro'g 
shall  he  divide  the  spoil,  in  lieu  of  this  that  he  lared  unto  death  his  s'ul,  and 
with  the  transgressors  vas  numhoxd,  and  he  [himself)  lore  the  sin  of  many, 
and  for  the  transgressors  he  shall  make  intercession.  The  Septuagint  and 
Vulgate  make  the  7nany  and  the  strong  the  verj'  spoil  to  be  divided  {y.}.rtCo- 
K>/x^ff£/  To/.Xoi;,  dispertiam  ei  j/lurimos).  The  same  construction  is  retaint  d 
b}'  Lowth,  Martini,  Rosenmiiller,  Hengstenberg,  and  others.  It  would 
scarcely  be  natural,  however,  even  if  both  adjectives  were  preceded  by  the 
ambiguous  particle  HK,  much  less  when  the  first  has  ?  before  it,  which 
occurs  nowhere  else  as  a  connective  of  this  verb  with  its  object.  It  is 
better,  therefore,  to  adopt  the  usual  conslniction,  sanctioned  by  Calvin, 
Gesenius,  and  Ewald,  which  supposes  him  to  be  described  as  equal  to  the 
greatest  conquerors.  If  this  is  not  enough,  or  if  the  sense  is  frigid,  as 
Martini  alleges,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  interpreter,  who  has  no  right  to 
strengthen  the  expressions  of  his  author  by  means  of  forced  constructions. 
The  simple  meaning  of  the  first  clause  is  that  he  shall  be  triumphant,  not 
that  others  shall  be  sharers  in  his  victory,  but  that  he  shall  be  as  gloriously 
successful  in  his  enterprise  as  other  victors  ever  were  in  theirs.  Indeed 
the  same  sense  may  be  thus  obtained,  for  which  the  writers  above  men- 
tioned have  departed  from  the  obvious  construction,  if,  instead  of  making 
3  and  riS  denote  comparison,  we  understand  them  to  denote  locality,  and 
to  describe  him  as  obtaining  spoil  not  with  but  among  the  many  and  the 
strong,  and  thus  securing  as  the  fruits  of  victory  not  only  their  possessions, 
])ut  themselves. — Hengstenberg  gives  D'BT  the  sense  of  might g,  simply 
because  that  idea  is  expressed  by  the  parallel  term  ;  which  ratlur  proves 
the  contrary,  as  a  synonymous  parallelism  would  in  this  rase  be  enfeeUing, 
and  the  very  same  word  is  admitted  to  mean  many  by  Hengstenberg  him- 
self in  the  lust  clause. — Abarbenel's  objection  that  Christ  never  waged  war 
or  divided  spoil,  has  been  eagerly  caught  up  and  repeated  liy  the  rational- 
istic school  of  critics.  P.ut  Hengstenberg  bus  clearly  shewn  that  si>iiitual 
triumphs  must  be  here  inlenilcd,  because  no  others  could  be  represented  as 
the  fruit  of  voluntary  humiliation  and  vicarious  sufl'ering,  and  because  the 
Bame  thing  is  described  in  the  context  as  a  sprinkling  of  the  nations,  as  a 


Ver.  12.]  ISAIAH  LIIL  807 

bearing  of  their  guilt,  and  as  their  justification.     The  many  and  the  strong  of 
this  verse  are  the  nations  and  the  kings  of  chap.  Hi.  15,  the  spiritual  seed 
of  vers.  8  and  10  above.     (Compare  chap.  xi.   10,  and  Ps.  ii.  8.) — The 
last  clause  recapitulates  the  claims  of  the  Messiah  to  this  glorious  reward. 
f^T'^lv'.  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  poured  out,  with  an  allusion  to  the 
shedding  of  blood  considered  as  the  vehicle  of  life.     (Geu.  ix.  4,  Lev.  xvii. 
11.)     Beck  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  writer  looks  upon  the  soul 
itself  as  a  material  fluid  running  in  the  blood.     Not  only  is  this  inference 
a  forced  one,  but  the  premises  from  which  it  is  deduced  are  doubtful ;  for 
it  seems  more  accordant  with  the  usage  of  the  verb,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  afford  a  better  sense,  if  we  explain  it  to  mean  made  hare  or  exposed  to 
death.     The  assertion  that  0107  would  then  be  superfluous  is  refuted  by 
the  analogy  of  Judges  v.  18. — The  reflexive  sense  which  Hengstenberg  and 
others  give  to  HJP?  (numbered  himself,  or  suffered  himself  to  be  numbered), 
though  not  absolutely  necessary,  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  context, 
and  the  obvious  consideration  that  his  being  numbered  passively  among 
them  was  not  such  a  claim  to  subsequent  reward,  as  a  voluntary  acquies- 
cence in  their  estimation. — The  application  of  this  clause  to  om*  Saviour's 
crucifixion  between  thieves  (Mark  xv.  28)  is  justly  said  by  Hengstenberg 
not  to   exhaust  the  whole  sense  of  the  prophecy. — It  rather  points   out 
one  of  those  remarkable  coincidences  which  were  brought  about  by  Pro- 
vidence, between  the  prophecies  and  the  circumstances  of  our  Saviour's 
passion. — ^^5?!  does  not  mean  he  fell  amowi  sinners,  i.  e.  he  was  reckoned 
one  of  them  (Maurer),  but,  as  in  Jer.  xxxvi.  25,  denotes  intercession,  not 
in  the  restricted  sense  of  prayer  for  others,  but  in  the  wider  one  of  meri- 
torious and  prevailing  intervention,  which  is  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  New 
Testament,  not  as  a  work  already  finished,  like  that  of  atonement,  but  as 
one  still  going  on  (Rom.  viii.  34,  Heb.  ix.  24,   1  John  ii.   1),  for  which 
cause  the  Prophet  here  employs  the  future  form.     There  is  no  ground, 
therefore,  for  expjainiug  it  as  a  descriptive  present,  or  perverting  it  into  a 
preterite,  nor  even  for  transforming  NCJ  to  a  future  likewise,  for  the  sake 
of  uniformity.     Because  the  Prophet  speaks  of  the  atonement  as  already 
past,  and  of  the  work  of  intercession  as  still  future,  it  follows,  not  as  some 
imagine,  that  he  meant  to  represent  both  as  past  or  both  as  future,  but  on 
the  contrary  that  he  has  said  precisely  what  he  meant  to  say,  provided  that 
we  give  his  words  their  simple,  obvious,  and  unforced  meaning.     The  N-in) 
does  not  mean  nud  ijet,  nhcrens,  or  althoiir/h,  but  is  either  designed  to  make 
the  pronoun  emphatic  {he  himself  or  he  on  his  part),  or,  as  Hengstenberg 
suggests,  to  shew  that  the  last  two  members  of  the  clause  are  not  depend- 
^t  on  the  "l'^'>?  nnri.     This  last  phrase  does  not  simply  mean  because,  but 
expresses  more  distinctly  the  idea  of  reward  or  compensation.     The  most 
specious  objection  to  the  old  interpretation  of  this  verse,  as  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement,  is  the  one  made  by  Luzzatto,  who  asserts 
that  i<V"?>  when  directly  followed  by  a  noun  denoting  sin,  invariably  means 
to  forgive  or  pardon  it,  except  in  Lev.  x.  17,  where  it  means  to  atone  for 
it,  but  never  to  bear  the  sins  of  others,  which  can  only  be  expressed  by 
?  KtJ'J,  as  in  Ezek.  xviii.  19,  20.     In  proof  of  his  general  assertion,  he 
appeals  to  Gen.  i.  17,  Exod.   x.  17,  xxxii.  32,  xxxiv.  7,   Ps.  xxxii.  5, 
Ixxxv.  3,  Job  vii.  21,  in  all  which  cases  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  sense 
which  he  alleges  is  the  true  one.     It  is  no   sufllicient  answer  to  this  argu- 
ment to  say  that  the  parallel  expression  (D^l^iy  ?3P!')  determines  the  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase  in  question  ;  since  all  parallelisms  are  not  synonymous, 
and  no  parallelism  can  prove  anything  in  opposition  to  a  settled  usage.   But 


808  ISAIAH  LIU.  [Ver.  12. 

although  the  parallel  phrase  cannot  change  or  even  ascertain  the  sense  of 
this,  it  docs  itself  undoubtedly  express  the  idea  which  the  objector  seeks  to 
banish  from  the  text;  since  no  one  can  pretend  to  say  that  73p  means  to 
pardon,  and  it  matters  not  on  which  side  of  the  i»:irallel  the  disputed 
doctrine  is  expressed,  if  it  only  be  expressed  at  all.  Little  or  nothing  would 
be  therefore  gained  by  proving  that  NOn  Ntl'J  only  means  to  pardon.  Hut 
this  is  ver}'  far  from  being  proved  by  the  induction  which  Luzzatto  has  ex- 
hibited, and  by  which  he  has  unintentionally  put  a  weajion  into  the  hands 
of  his  opponents  while  attempting  to  disarm  them.  How  can  this  learned 
and  ingenious  Jew  account  for  the  fact,  which  he  himself  asserts,  that  the 
idea  of  forgiveness  is  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  verb  KL'O  ?  The  most 
plausible  account  which  he  could  probably  give  is  that  Nt'3  means  to  take 
away,  and  that  to  pardon  is  to  lake  away  sin.  But  let  it  be  obseiTcd,  in 
the  first  place,  that  the  two  ideas  are  by  no  means  identical,  and  that  to 
many,  perhaps  most  minds,  the  phrase  to  take  away  sin  suggests  the  idea, 
not  of  pardon  properly  so  called,  but  of  something  preparatory  to  it  ;  and 
what  is  this  something  but  atonement  ?  In  the  next  place,  the  primary 
and  proper  meaning  of  i^^'}  is  not  to  take  aivai/,  but  to  take  tip,  or  to  take 
upon  one's  self ;  its  most  frequent  secondary  meaning  is  to  take  ahout  or 
carry,  and  even  in  the  cases  where  it  means  to  take  iniaij,  it  means  to  take 
away  by  taking  up  and  bearing :  so  that  even  if  Nt^n  NL*'J  means  to  take 
away  sin,  it  would  necessarily  suggest  the  idea  of  its  being,  in  some  sense, 
taken  up  nnd  borne,  as  the  means  of  its  removal.  In  the  third  place,  the 
only  satisfactory  solution  of  the  question  above  stated  is,  that  the  usage,  to 
which  it  relates,  presupposes  the  doctrine,  that  the  only  way  iu  which  a  holy 
God  can  take  away  sin  is  by  bearing  it  :  in  other  words,  he  can  forgive  it 
only  by  providing  an  atonement  for  it.  This  alone  enables  h'm  to  bo 
supremely  just,  and  yet  a  justifier,  not  of  the  innocent,  but  of  the  guilty. 
Thus  the  usage,  which  Luzzatto  so  triumphantly  adduces  to  disprove  the 
doctrine  of  atonement,  is  found,  on  deeper  and  more  thorough  scrutiny, 
itself  to  presuppose  that  very  doctrine,  liut  lastly,  let  it  be  observed  that 
Luzzatto  is  compelled  to  grant  that  N'V'J  may  mean  to  bear  the  guilt  of 
others  as  a  substitute,  but  modestly  asks  us  to  believe  that  it  has  this  sense 
only  in  one  place  (Ezek.  xviii.  20),  and  even  there  only  because  followed 
by  a  3 ;  as  if  that  construction,  which  is  perpetually  interchanged  with  the 
direct  one,  could  have  more  efl'ect  iu  that  case,  than  the  context  and  paral- 
lelism in  the  one  before  us.  The  only  other  aberration  which  it  will  bo 
necessary  here  to  notice,  is  the  strange  opinion,  broached  by  P^walJ,  with 
his  characteristic  contidence  and  abstinence  from  proof,  that  this  whole 
passage,  from  the  thirteenth  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter,  is  the  work 
of  an  older  writer  than  the  Great  Unknown  to  whom  he  ascribes  tbe  other 
chapters,  and  whom  he  supposes  to  have  thrust  it  into  the  midst  of  his  own 
composition,  without  any  reason  why  it  should  stand  any  where,  and  still 
less  why  it  should  stand  just  in  this  place ;  since,  according  to  Ewald's 
own  account,  it  has  no  direct  connection  either  with  what  goes  before  or 
follows.  The  arguments  by  which  ho  undertakes  to  justify  this  wild 
hypothesis  are  such  as  we  have  long  since  learned  to  rate  at  their  true 
value,  such  as  the  use  and  repetition  of  expressions  and  ideas  which  occur 
nowhere  else,  together  with  the  vague  metaphorical  assertion,  that  the 
atmosphere  of  this  piece  is  entirely  dilVerent  from  tbat  of  the  otlier  chajiters, 
always  excepting  chap.  hi.  It  to  Ivii.  11,  which  (we  may  almost  s.ay,  of 
course)  is  likewise  an  interpolation.  It  is  strange  that  such  an  intellect  as 
Ewald's  should  have  failed  to  perceive  that  all  this  is  an  ill-disguised  con- 


Vek.  1.'  ISAIAH  LIV.  309 

fessioii  of  his  own  incapacity  to  trace  the  trne  connection  in  a  difficult  por- 
tion of"  an  ancient  writing,  and  proceeds  upon  the  principle,  which  even  he 
would  hardly  venture  to  propound  in  terms,  that  it  is  better  to  expunge  a 
passage  from  the  text  than  to  acknowledge  its  obscurlt}'  or  leave  it  unex- 
plained. If  it  be  true,  as  he  asserts,  that  this  is  the  only  way  in  which  the 
existing  controversy  as  to  the  fifty-third  chapter  can  be  settled,  it  had  better 
not  bo  settled  at  all.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  neither  Ewald's  reason- 
ing nor  his  authority  appear  to  have  made  any  converts  to  this  neoteric 
doctrine.  With  respect  to  the  frequent  repetitions  which  he  charges  on  the 
passage,  it  may  be  added  in  conclusion,  that  so  far  from  being  rhetorical 
defects  or  indications  of  another  author,  they  are  used  with  an  obvious 
design,  viz.  that  of  making  it  impossible  for  any  ingenuity  or  learning  to 
eliminate  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement  irom  this  passage,  by  pre- 
senting it  so  often  and  in  forms  so  vai'ied  and  yet  still  the  same,  that  he 
who  succeeds  in  expelling  it  from  one  place  is  compelled  to  meet  it  in  an- 
other, as  we  have  alread}'  seen  to  be  the  case  in  the  comparison  of  vers.  4 
and  11,  as  interpreted  by  Hitzig  and  Gesenius.  Whether  the  dreaded  in- 
convenience is  more  barely  met  or  more  effectually  remedied  b}'  making 
this  incorrigible  prophecy  still  older  than  the  rest  with  which  it  stands 
connected,  is  a  question  which  we  leave  to  the  decision  of  the  reader. 


CHAPTER  LIV. 

Instead  of  suffering  from  the  loss  of  her  national  prerogatives,  the 
church  shall  be  more  glorious  and  productive  than  before,  ver.  1 .  Instead 
of  being  limited  to  a  single  nation,  she  shall  be  so  extended  as  to  take  in 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  vers.  2,  3.  What  seemed  at  first  to  be  her 
forlorn  and  desolate  condition,  shall  be  followed  by  a  glorious  change,  ver.  4. 
He  who  seemed  once  to  be  the  God  of  the  Jews  only,  shall  now  be  seen  to 
be  the  God  of  the  Gentiles  also,  ver.  5.  The  abrogation  of  the  old  economy 
was  like  the  repudiation  of  a  wife,  but  its  effects  will  shew  it  to  be  rather  a 
renewal  of  the  conjugal  relation,  ver.  6.  The  momentaiy  rejection  shall 
be  followed  by  an  everlasting  reconcihation,  vers.  7,  8.  The  old  economy, 
like  Noah's  flood,  can  never  be  repeated,  ver.  0.  That  was  a  temporary 
institution  ;  this  shall  outlast  the  earih  itself,  ver.  10.  The  old  Jerusalem 
shall  be  forgotten  in  the  splendour  of  the  new,  vers.  11,  12.  But  this  shall 
be  a  spiritual  splendour,  springing  from  a  constant  divine  influence,  ver.  13. 
Hence  it  shall  also  be  a  holy  and  a  safe  state,  ver.  14.  All  the  enemies  of 
the  church  shall  either  be  destroyed  or  received  into  her  bosom,  ver.  15. 
The  warrior  and  his  weapons  are  like  God's  creatures  and  at  his  disposal, 
ver.  10.  In  every  contest,  both  of  hand  and  tongue,  the  church  shall  be 
triumphant,  not  in  her  own  right  or  her  own  strength,  but  in  that  of  him 
who  justifies,  protects,  and  saves  her,  ver.  17. 

1.  Shout,  0  barren,  that  did  not  hear ;  break  forth  into  a  shout  and  cry 
aloud,  she  that  did  not  writhe  (in  childbirth)  :  for  more  {are)  the  children  of 
the  desolate  than  the  children  uf  the  married  {ivoman),  saith  Jehovah.  Ac- 
cording to  Grotius  and  some  later  writers,  the  object  of  address  is  the  city 
of  Jerusalem,  in  which  no  citizens  were  born  during  the  exile,  but  which  was 
afterwards  to  be  more  populous  than  the  other  cities  of  Judah  which  had  not 
been  reduced  to  such  a  state  of  desolation.  Besides  other  difliculties  which 
attend  this  explanation,  it  will  be  sutheient  to  observe  that  those  who  apply 
the  first  verse  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem  are  under  the  necessity  of  afterwards 


810  ISAIAU  LIV.  [Vkr.  2-4. 

assuming  that  this  object  is  exchanged  for  another,  viz  the  people  ;  a 
conchisive  reason  for  regarding  this  as  tlio  original  nljict  of  address,  espc- 
ciall}'  as  we  have  had  abundant  proi.f  already  that  the  Zion  or  Jcrupalem 
of  these  Later  Prophecies  is  the  city  only  as  a  symbol  of  the  Church  or 
nation.  Our  idiom  in  the  first  clause  would  require  didst  not  hear  and 
didst  not  writhe;  but  Hebrew  usage  admits  of  the  third  pei-son.  Another 
Hebrew  idiom  is  the  expression  of  the  same  idea,  first  in  a  positive  and  then 
in  a  negiitive  form,  barren  that  did  not  bear.  This  verj-  combination  occurs 
more  than  once  elsewhere.  (Judges  xiii.  2;  Job  xxiv.  21. \— For  the  sense 
of  n^l  'nys,  see  above,  on  chap.  Hi.  9;  and  for  that  of  niOlpi:;*  as  opposed  to 
^?^y?,  compare  2  Sam.  xiii.  20.  The  eame  antithesis  here  used  occurs  in 
1  Sam.  ii.  5. 

2.  Widen  the  p^ ace  of  thy  tent,  and  the  cwt  tins  of  thy  dicclUnjs  let  them 
stretch  out;  spare  not  (or  hindrr  it  not),  lengthen  thy  cords  and  strengthen 
(or  make  fast)  thy  stakes.  As  in  the  parallel  passage  (chap.  xlix.  20,  21), 
the  promise  of  increase  is  now  expressed  by  the  figure  of  enlarged  accom- 
modations. The  place  mny  either  be  the  area  within  the  tent  or  the  spot 
on  which  it  is  erected.  The  curtains  are  the  tent-cloths  stretched  upon 
the  poles  to  form  the  dwelling.  ]r^V,  though  strictly  a  generic  term,  is 
often  used  in  reference  to  tents,  and  particularly  to  the  tabernacle.  Some 
take  "ItS^  as  a  neuter  or  reflexive  verb,  let  them  stretch  out  or  extend  them- 
selves;  but  Kimchi  construes  it  with  thosr  who  stretch,  and  Ewald  with  an 
indefinite  subject,  let  them  stretch.  That  this  verb  was  habitually  used  iu 
this  connection,  may  be  learned  from  2  Sam.  xvi.  22,  The  stakes  are  the 
tent-pins,  to  which  the  tent-cloths  are  attached  by  cords.  The  last  verb 
may  either  inean  take  stronger  pins,  or  fix  them  more  firmly  in  the  ground ; 
both  implying  an  enlargement  of  the  tent,  and  a  consequently  greater  stress 
upon  the  cords  and  stakes. 

3.  For  riijlit  and  left  shalf  thou  break  forth  (or  spread),  and  tliy  seed  shall 
possess  (or  disposse.'^s  or  inherit)  nations,  and  repeople  ruined  (or/orsaken) 
cities.  Kimchi  understands  right  and  left  as  geographical  terms  equivalent 
to  north  and  south,  the  cast  and  west  being  represented  by  nations  and 
cities.  Knobel  gives  the  same  explanation  of  the  first  two,  but  accounts 
for  the  omission  of  the  other  two  by  saying  that  the  sea  was  on  the  west, 
and  on  the  east  a  wilderness.  A  far  more  natural  interpretation  of  tho 
words  is  that  which  take  right  and  left  as  indefinite  expressions  meaning 
on  both  sides  or  in  all  directions.  The  verb  )'??  was  poruliarly  appropri:ito, 
because  associated  with  the  promise  in  Gen.  xxviii.  II,  in  which  case  all  the 
cardinal  points  of  tho  compass  are  distinctly  mentioned,  tnj  is  not  simply 
to  possess  but  to  inherit,  t.  e.  to  possess  by  succession,  which  in  this  case 
implies  tho  dispossession  of  the  previous  inhabitants,  so  that  the  version  drive 
out,  given  by  Gesenius  and  others,  although  not  a  literal  translation,  really 
expresses  no  idea  not  expressed  in  tho  original.  The  figurative  moaning  of 
the  terms,  as  in  many  other  cases,  is  evinced  by  an  immediate  change  of 
figure,  w  thont  any  regard  to  mere  rhetorical  consistency.  The  same  thing 
which  is  first  represented  as  the  violent  expulsion  of  an  enemy  from  his 
dominions,  is  immediately  afterwards  described  as  the  restoratiim  of  deserted 
places,  unless  niOv'3  be  su]>posed  to  moan  /nrniken  by  those  just  before 
expelled,  which  is  hardly  ccmsistent  with  its  usage  as  applied  to  desolations 
of  long  standing. — Tho  whole  verso  is  a  boautilul  description  of  tho  won- 
derful extension  of  the  chiirch,  and  her  spiritual  conquest  of  the  natitms. 

4.   Fear  not,  for  tlou  shalt  not  ht  ashamed :  and  br  twt  abashed,  for  thou 
thalt  U't  blmh  ;for  the  shame  of  thy  youth  thou  shalt  forget,  and  the  reproach 


Ver.  5,  G.]  ISAIAH  LIV.  311 

of  thy  xoidoivhood  thou  shah  not  remember  any  more.  Here,  as  in  many 
other  cases,  shame  includes  the  disappointment  of  the  hopes,  but  with 
specific  reference  to  previous  misconduct.  (See  Job  vi.  20.)  The  first 
chiuse  declares  that  she  has  no  cause  for  despondenc}',  the  second  disposes 
of  the  causes  which  might  seem  to  be  suggested  by  her  histor5\  The  essen- 
tial meaning  is,  thy  former  experience  of  my  displeasure.  The  figurative 
form  of  the  expression  is  accommodated  to  the  chosen  metaphor  of  a  wife 
forsaken  and  restored  to  her  husband.  The  specific  reference  of  youth 
to  the  Egyptian  bondage,  and  of  toidowhood  to  the  Babylonian  exile,  is 
extremely  artificial,  and  forbidden  by  the  context. 

5.  For  thy  husband  (is)  thy  jllaJar,  Jehovah  of  hostn  [is)  his  name  ;  and 
thy  Rtdcemer  {is)  the  Ilo^y  One  of  Israel,  the  God  of  all  the  earth  shall  he 
he  cnllel.  This  verse  is  marked  by  a  peculiar  regularity  of  structiu'e,  the 
two  members  of  the  first  clause  corresponding  exactly  to  the  similar  mem- 
bers of  the  other.  In  each  cla«se  the  first  member  points  out  the  relation 
of  Jehovah  to  his  people,  while  the  second  proclaims  one  of  his  descriptive 
names.  He  is  related  to  the  church  as  her  Husband  and  Redeemer  ;  he  is 
known  or  shall  be  known  to  all  mankind  as  the  Lord  of  hosts  and  as  the 
God  of  the  xohole  earth,  which  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  equivalent  expres- 
sions. As  the  Goel  of  the  Jewish  institutions,  the  redeemer  of  a  fortVited 
inheritance,  was  necessarily  the  next  of  kin,  it  is  appropi'iately  placed  in 
opposition  to  the  endearing  name  of  husband ;  and  as  the  title  Lord  of 
hosts  imports  a  universal  sovereignty,  it  is  no  less  exactly  matched  with 
the  God  of  the  whole  earth.  But  this  last  phrase  expresses  the  idea  of 
universal  recognition. — There  is  no  grammatical  objection  to  the  usual  in- 
terpretation of  the  last  word  in  the  verse,  as  meaning  he  is  called,  corre- 
sponding to  his  name  is  in  the  other  clause,  and  signifying,  in  the  Hebrew 
idiom,  he  is,  with  emphasis.  But  since  no  reason  can  in  that  case  be 
assigned  for  the  use  of  i^.l!^!  instead  of  ^^i?^,  and  since 'the  sti"ict  translation 
of  the  future  strengthens  the  expression  by  transforming  a  description  into  a 
prophecy,  it  seems  best  to  retain  the  English  Version,  the  God  of  (he  xohole 
earth  shall  he  be  called,  i.  e.  he  shall  be  recognised  hereafter  in  the  character 
which  even  now  belongs  to  him.  (Compare  chap.  xlv.  23,  and  Rom.  xiv. 
11.)  The  Targum  and  the  Vulgate,  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  take  "^I^Jt.^  in 
its  primitive  sense  of  thy  lords  or  rulers ;  but  this,  though  etymologic-ally 
right,  is  less  agreeable  to  usage,  to  the  parallelism,  the  immediate  context,  and 
the  analogy  of  other  places  where  the  conjugal  relation  is  undoubtedly  re- 
ferred to.  (See  especially  chap.  Ix  i.  4,  5.)  The  form  of  this  word  and 
^^?f'y  is  regarded  by  Gescnius  as  an  instance  of  Vug  plural  is  majestaticus, 
while  Maurer  makes  the  last  a  singular  form  peculiar  to  the  p|^  derivatives, 
and  supposes  the  other  to  be  merely  assimilated  to  it  by  a  species  of  paro- 
nomasia. 

').  For  as  a  icife  forsaken  and  grieved  in  spirit  has  Jehovah  called  thee, 
and  (^as)  a  xvife  of  youth,  for  she  shall  be  rejected,  said  thy  God.  Reduced 
to  a  prosaic  form  and  order,  this  verse  seems  to  mean,  that  Jehovah  had 
espoused  her  in  her  youth,  then  cast  her  oft'  for  her  iniquities,  and  now  at 
last  recalled  her  from  her  solitude  and  grief  to  be  his  wife  agaui.  (Compare 
Hosea,  ii.  4,  7,  14,  16,  19.) — ^4  icife  of  youth,  not  merely  a  young  wife, 
but  one  married  early.  (See  Proverbs  v.  18,  and  Malachi  ii.  14.)  As  this 
description  belongs  not  to  the  main  subject,  but  to  the  thing  with  which  it 
is  compared,  there  is  no  propriety  in  making  youth  mean  a  specific  period 
in  the  history  of  Israel.  The  sense  is  not  that  she  had  been  wedded  to 
Jehovah  in  her  youth  and  now  recalled,  but  that  he  now  recalled  her  as  a 


812  ISAIAH  LIW  [Vee.  7,  8. 

husband  might  recall  the  long  rejected  wife  of  his  youth. — The  common 
version  of  the  last  clause,  when  tlum  uast  refused,  is  ungnimmatical,  unless 
we  take  DX^ri  as  a  licence  for  'P^??'?  like  n"ipri  in  chai).  Ivii.  8,  and  such 
anomalies  are  not  to  be  assumed  much  less  to  be  multiplied  without  ueces- 
sit}'.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  make  it  the  third  person,  but  retain  the 
same  construction  :  who  has  been  (or  wh^-ii  she  has  been)  rejected.  But  this, 
besides  being  forced,  would  seem  to  require  the  praeter,  not  the  future, 
which  Hitzig  sets  down  as  an  iuacciu-acy  of  the  writer.  Still  more  un- 
natural and  arbitrary  is  Luzzatto's  interrogative  construction,  "  Can  the 
wife  of  ones  youth  be  thus  abhorred?  Surely  not."  Ewald  gains  the  same 
sense  by  making  it  an  ironical  exclamation  :  and  the  loife  of  one's  youth — 
(as  if  it  were  possible)  that  she  could  be  treated  loith  contemjd!  Ail  these 
expedients  are  precluded  by  the  fact  that  we  obtain  a  good  sense  by  adher- 
ing to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  *?  and  of  the  future,  simply  making  these 
the  words  of  Jehovah  at  the  time  of  her  rejection,  and  referring  ">P^5  to  the 
same  time  and  to  this  clause  alone,  instead  of  making  it  include  the  whole 
verse,  which  is  the  less  natural,  because  the  first  clause  speaks  of  Jehovah 
in  the  first  person.  Thus  understood,  the  last  clause  is  an  explanation  of 
the  first,  in  which  she  is  said  to  have  been  recalled  as  a  forsaken  wife,  and 
as  a  wife  of  youth,  because  her  God  had  said  to  her  at  that  time,  thou 
shalt  be  rejected.  This  explanation,  while  it  simplifies  the  syntax,  leaves 
the  meaning  of  the  verse  unaltered. — Henderson  calls  upon  the  reader  to 
"  mark  the  paronomasia  in  n^-ITy  and  na-ivy."  Gesenius  goes  further  and 
attempts  to  copy  it  (em  vertriebnes  Weib  betruhten  Ilcrzens) ;  while  Hitzig, 
it  may  be  for  that  veiy  reason,  douljts  whether  any  paronomasia  was  de- 
signed at  all. 

7.  In  a  little  moment  I  forsook  thee,  and  in  (pi  at  mercies  I  uill  i/at  her  thee. 
The  metaphor  is  here  carried  out  in  the  form  of  an  alluctionate  assurance 
that  the  love  now  restored  shall  experience  no  further  interruption.  The 
use  of  the  preterite  and  future  implies  an  intermediate  point  of  view  between 
the  opposite  treatments  here  described.  I  did  forsake  thee,  and  now  I  am 
about  to  gather  thee.  Hitzig  explains  this  last  expression  by  the  analog)- 
of  Judges  xix.  15,  where  a  cognate  verb  means  to  receive  into  one's  house. 
So  Lowth  translates  it,  /  will  receive  thee  again,  and  Ewald  in  like  manner. 
Umbreit  still  more  expressly,  /  draw  thee  to  myself.  Knobel  applies  the 
term  directly  to  the  people,  whose  scattered  members  were  to  be  collected. 
(See  chap,  xxvii.  12,  xliii.  5.)  According  to  Umbreit,  the  time  of  anger  is 
called  little  in  comparison  with  the  provocation  oflered ;  according  to  Knobel, 
in  comparison  with  the  favour  that  should  follow,  which  agrees  far  better 
with  the  parallelism  and  the  context.  Hitzig,  however,  says  that  it  is  not 
the  period  of  alienation  which  is  here  described  as  short,  but  the  anger 
which  occasioned  it.  A  similar  antithesis  is  used  by  David,  Ps.  xxx.  0. 
(Compare  Isaiah  xxvi.  20.)  Instead  of  yreat  mercies,  H«'nderson  has  with 
the  greatest  tenderness. — If  any  specific  application  of  the  words  bo  made, 
it  must  bo  to  the  momentary  casting  olf  of  Israel  which  seemed  to  accom- 
pany the  change  of  dispensations.  The  confusion  of  the  metaphors  in  this 
whole  passage  springs  from  the  complexity  of  the  relations  which  they  re- 
present. As  a  nation,  Israel  was  in  fact  cast  otl';  but  as  a  church,  it  never 
couM  be. 

H.  Ill  a  yuxh  if  irnith  I  hid  my  face  a  moment  from  thee,  and  in  rterlant- 
ing  klndncHH  I  hare  had  merey  on  thee,  xaith  thy  liedeemer,  Jehovah.  Tlio 
idea  of  the  preceding  wrse  is  again  expressed  more  fully.  The  word  ^VK* 
occurs  only  hero.     The  older  writers  conjectured  from  the  context  that  it 


Ver.  9.J  ISAIAH  LIV.  318 

signified  a  short  time  or  a  little  quantity,  llablii  Menuliem  is  quoted  by 
Jarchi  as  explaining,'  it  to  mean  heat  or  fury,  which  is  no  doubt  also  merely 
conjectural.  Schultens  explains  it  from  an  Arabic  analogy  as  n)e;uiiug 
hardness  or  severity.  Rosenmiiller  and  Gissenius  identify  it  with  ^9"^'>  '^ 
flood  or  inundation,  which  is  elsewhere  used  in  reference  to  anger  (Prov. 
vii.  21.)  So  in  chap.  xlii.  25,  the  wrath  of  God  is  said  to  have  been^^ourecZ 
out  upon  Israel.  According  to  Gesenius,  it  is  here  written  ^"^^  only  for 
the  sake  of  the  rescniMance  to  ^Viv-  '^^^^  paronomasia  is  copied  by  Gesenius 
{in  der  Fluth  der  Zorwjluth),  by  Hitzig  [in  deiher  Herbe),  and  by  Ewald 
{ah  der  Groll  war  voll.)  We  do  not  find  that  any  of  these  writers  make 
the  rapid  recurrence  of  this  figure  in  so  short  a  space  an  argument  to  prove 
that  the  passage  was  written  by  a  ditferent  author.  Ewald  gives  ^J^ipni  the 
sense  which  it  has  in  Kal,  and  renders  it,  I  love  ihee.  This  is  undoubtedly 
implied,  but  the  sense  of  sheioin;/  mercy  is  required  not  only  by  usage  but 
by  the  context,  which  describes  the  relenting  of  one  previously  offended. — 
This  verse,  like  the  one  before  it,  is  a  general  description  of  the  everlasting 
favour  which  shall  drown  the  veiy  memory  of  former  alienations  between 
God  and  his  people.  The  modern  German  school  of  course  restrict  it  to 
the  Babylonish  exile.  Cocceius  extends  it  to  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment economy,  which  although  long  to  man  was  but  a  day  in  the  divine 
sight  (Ps.  xc.  4).  Yitringa,  not  content  with  these  gratuitous  appropria- 
tions of  a  general  promise,  or  with  this  prosaic  disfiguration  of  an  exquisite 
poetical  conception,  undertakes  to  give  a  ditlerent  application  to  the  two 
verses,  applying  the  little  moment  of  ver.  7  to  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  the 
angry  moment  of  ver.  8  to  the  Syrian  persecution.  With  equal  reason  they 
might  be  pronounced  descriptive  of  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  bondage,  or 
of  the  Ass}Tian  and  the  Babylonian,  or  of  the  Sy]'ian  and  the  Pioman.  If, 
because  it  is  appropriate  to  one  of  these  events,  it  has  no  reference  to  anv" 
other,  then  they  all  may  be  successively  excluded,  and  with  equal  ease  all 
proved  to  be  the  subject  of  the  prophecy.  The  only  specific  application 
which  is  equally  consistent  with  the  form  of  the  expression  and  the  context, 
is  the  one  suggested  in  the  note  upon  the  foregoing  verse. 

9.  For  the  waters  of  Noah  is  this  to  me;  irhat  I  sua  re  from  the  n-aters  of 
Noah  jiassin//  affain  over  the  earth  {i.  e.  against  their  passing,  or,  that  they 
should  not  pass),  .so  /  have  sicorn  fro)n  hein;/  an(/ri/  (that  I  will  not  be  angry) 
aijdiitst  thee,  and  from  rehukinri  (that  I  will  not  rebuke)  thee.  The  assurance 
of  the  preceding  verse  is  now  repeated  in  another  form.  There  can  no  more 
be  another  such  eflusion  of  my  wrath  than  there  can  be  another  deluge, 
here  called  the  waters  oj  Noah,  just  as  we  familiarly  say  "  Noah's  flood." 
The  security  in  this  case,  as  in  that,  is  a  divine  oath  or  solemn  covenant, 
like  that  recorded  Gen.  viii.  21,  and  ix.  11.  Vitringa,  as  usual,  converts 
a  simile  into  a  symbol,  and  endeavours  to  enumerate  the  points  of  similarity 
between  the  world  and  the  deluge,  the  chm-ch  and  the  ark.  It  is  only  upon 
this  erroneous  supposition  that  such  passages  as  Ps.  cxxiv.  4,  5,  can  be  re- 
garded as  illustrative  parallels.  Such  minute  coincidences  any  reader  is  at 
liberty  to  search  out  for  himself;  but  the  text  mentions  only  one  point  of 
comparison  between  the  two  events,  namely,  that  neither  can  occm*  again. 
The  Prophet  does  not  say  that  God's  displeasure  with  the  church  is  a  flood 
which  shall  never  be  repeated,  but  that  it  shall  never  be  repeated  any  more 
than  the  flood.  When  our  Lord  says  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through 
the  eye  of  a  needle  than  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  heaven,  no  one  thinks  of 
running  a  comparison  between  the  rich  man  and  the  camel,  or  inquiring  what 
the  hump  or  the  double  stomach  signifies ;  because  the  text  suggests  not  a 


814  ISAIAH  LIV.  [Veb.  9. 

genenil  amilogy  between  the  rich  man  and  the  camel,  but  a  specific  one  con- 
fined to  one  particular.     In  the  case  before  us,  that  particular,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  is  the  certainty  that  neither  of  the  things  compared  can  ever 
be  repeated.     This  certuinly  does  not  arise,  as  Ewald  sct-ms  to  think,  from 
any  natural  necessity,  or  universal  law  forbidding  such  expurgatory  revolu- 
tions to  occur  more  than  once,  but,  as  the  text  expressly  tells  us,  from  the 
oath  and  covenant  of  God. — Instead  of  'P  '?,  one  or  two  manuscripts  have 
*0*3  all  in  one  word,  meaning  as  l/w  days  of  Noah,  and  Kinichi  speaks  of 
this  division  as  existing  in  some  ancient  codices  of  his  day.     This  reading 
likewise  appears  in  all  the  ancient  versions  but  the  Septuagint,  and  is  pre- 
fciTed  by  Lowtli  {as  in  the  dai/s  of  Xoali).     It  is  also  a  remarkable  coinci- 
dence that  this  expression  occurs  twice  in  the  New  Testament  (Mat.  xxiv.  37, 
1  Pet.  iii.  20),  but  not  in  reference  to  this  place  or  to  the  comparison  hero 
instituted.     All  the  latest  writers  seem  to  be  in  favour  of  adhering  to  the 
common  text,  which  is  probably  the  only  safe  conclusion,  although  some  of 
the  reasons  which  have  been  assigned  are  not  of  much  weight.    Henderson, 
for  instance,  says  that  "  the  conjunction  *?  could  not  have  been  omitted," 
yet  supposes  two  ellipses  of  the  preposition  ?  in  this  one  sentence,  and  in 
this  one  clause  of  it.     Another  argument  which  some  urge,  namely,  that 
the  words  ni"'D  are  repeated  afterwards,   may  be  employed  as   well   on 
one  side  as  the   other.     For  it   might  be  said,  wiih  some  plausibility  at 
least,  that  such  a  repetition,  not  for  the;  sake  of  parallelism,  but  in  the  same 
part  of  the  sentence,  is  unusual,  and  also  that  the  presence  of  these  two 
words  afterwards  may  easily  have  led  to  an  error  of  transcription.     The 
true  gi'ound  for  adhering  to  the  common  text  is  the  traditional  authority  of 
almost  everj'  codex  in  existence,  confirmed  by  that  of  the  oldest  version, 
and  by  its  yielding  a  perfectly  good  sense. — There  is  no  need  of  supplying 
any  preposition   before   uaters,   as   Gcsenius  does   {uie  hey  den   U'assern 
Noah's)  ;  since  the  meaning  is  that  this  is  the  same  thing  as  the  flood,  or 
just  such  another  case,   in  what  respect  is   afterwards  explained.     The 
closest  copy  of  the  original  is  Ewald's  Noah's  W'usser  ist  mir  dies.     The 
plural  iratcrs  is  connected  with  the  pronoun  in  the  singular,  simply  because 
it  is  used  only  in  the  plural.     The  pronoim  this  is  explained  b}-  Jarchi  to 
mean   this   oath,   by  Kimchi  this  captivity,  by  Knol  el  this  effusion  of  my 
wrath,  Sec.     The  best  construction  is  to  take  it  in   the  widest  sense,  as 
meaning  this  case,  this  a /fair,  or  the  like.     Hendewerk  appears  to  be  alone 
in  supplying  the  future  tense  of  the  verb  {this  shall  be)  instead  of  the  pre- 
sent {this  is).     On  the  privative  use  of  the  preposition  IP,  see  chap.  v.  0, 
viii.  11,  where  it  has  respect  to  negative  commands  or  prohibitions.     To 
me  does  not  simply  mean  in  my  view  or  opinion,  but  expresses  similarity 
of  obligation  ;  the  oath  was  as  binding  in  the  one  case  as  the  other. — Vit- 
ringa  and  Lowth  make  ^?.'^^  a  parliclc  of  time,  tthen  I  sirare.     Gcsenius  and 
the  other  modern  writers  take  it  as  a  particle  of  comparison,  corresponding 
to  15  just  as  the  full  expression  "'V'^fl  ^^o^s  in  chap.  xiv.  2t,  and  as  ^S'S 
itself  does  in  Jer.  xxxiii.  22.     Hendewerk  understands  it  strictly  as  a  rela- 
tive, of  uhich  I  sirare ;  in  which  19  is  not  a  parallel  expression,  but  simply 
continues  the  discourse.     The  same  constniction  of  %">^  might  be  retained 
without  entirely  destroying  the  antithesis,  by  rendering  the  former  uhat.    As 
if  he  had  said,  "  what  I  sware  then,  that  I  sicca r  now,"  but  the  exact  corre- 
spondence of  the  Uirms  is  impaired   by  changing  that  to  so.  •   It  is  a  matter 
of  indifference   whether  the   second  verb   be   rendered  7  Aovc  sirom  or  I 
swear;  since  even  in  the  former  case  it  means  I  have  now  stvorn,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  former  swearing  which  he  had  just  mentioned. — F^ebuke 


Ver.  10,  11.]  ISAIAH  LIV.  ,     315 

must  liere  be  taken  in  the  strong  and  pregnant  sense  which  it  has  in  chaps, 
xvii.  13,  1.  2,  li.  20,  and  very  generally  throughout  the  Old  Testament,  as 
signifying  not  a  merely  verbal  but  a  practical  rebuke.  There  is  no  need, 
however,  of  departing  from  the  literal  translation  with  Gesenius,  who  tran- 
slates it  curse,  and  Hitzig,  who  translates  \i  punish.  Umbreit  has  threaten, 
■which  is  nearer  to  the  strict  sense,  but  excludes  the  actual  iulliction,  which 
is  a  necessary  part  of  the  idea. — That  this  is  not  a  general  promise  of 
security,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  the  church  has  always  been  subjected 
to  vicissitudes  and  fluctuations.  Nor  is  there  any  period  in  her  history  to 
which  it  can  be  properly  applied  in  a  specific  sense,  except  the  change  of 
dispensations,  which  was  made  once  for  all,  and  can  never  be  repeated. 
That  the  church  shall  never  be  again  brought  imder  the  restrictive  institu- 
tions of  the  ceremonial  law,  is  neither  a  matter  of  course  nor  a  matter  of 
indifference,  but  a  glorious  promise  altogether  worthy  of  the  solemn  oath 
by  which  it  is  attested  here. 

10.  For  the  mountains  shall  move  and  the  hills  shall  sha/ce;  but  my  favour 
from  thee  shall  not  move,  and  my  covenant  of  peace  shall  not  shale,  saith  thy 
pilier,  Jehovah.  Vitringa's  observation,  that  the  futures  in  the  first  clause 
must  not  be  so  translated,  because  this  would  imply  that  hills  and  moun- 
tains might  be  moved,  w-hereas  they  are  here  represented  as  immoveable, 
affords  a  curious  illustration  of  the  tendency  among  interpreters  to  substi- 
tute what  they  would  have  said,  for  what  the  wi-iter  has  said.  If  the  first 
clause  does  not  literally  mean  that  the  mountains  and  the  hills  shall  move, 
that  idea  cannot  be  expressed  in  Hebrew.  This  is  indeed  the  customary 
method  of  expressing  such  comparisons.  (See  above,  on  chap.  xl.  8,  and 
xlix.  15.)  The  meaning  is  not  that  God's  promise  is  as  stable  as  the 
mountains,  but  that  it  is  more  so;  they  shall  bo  removed,  but  it  shall 
stand  for  ever.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  translating  the  verb  let 
them  shake  or  they  may  shalce,  as  some  of  the  latest  writers  do.  Still  more 
gi-atuitous  is  the  present  form  given  to  the  verbs  by  Gcscnius,  as  if  they 
expressed  a  thing  of  constant  occurrence.  Even  Yilringa  is  compelled  to 
admit  that  the  mountains  and  hills  in  th's  place  are  not  symbols  of  states 
and  empires,  but  natural  emblems  of  stability.  (See  Deut.  xxxiii.  15;  Ps. 
Ixv.  7,  cxxv.  1,  2.) — Gesenius  supposes  an  allusion  in  covenant  of  peace  to 
the  covenant  with  Noah  (Gen.  ix.  8,  11).  The  phrase  denotes  a  covenant, 
i.  e.  a  divine  promise  or  engagement,  securing  the  enjoyment  of  peace, 
both  in  the  strict  sense,  and  in  the  wide  one  of  prosperity  or  happiness. 
(Compare  v.  13,  chap.  liii.  5;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  25,  xxxvii.  20.)  The  suffix,  as 
in  many  other  cases,  qualifies  the  whole  phrase,  not  the  last  word  merely. 
The  covenant  of  my  peace  does  not  give  the  pense  so  fully  as  my  covenant  of 
pence,  i.  e.  my  peace-giving  covenant,  or  as  llosenmiiller  phrases  it,  victim 
pacifcum  fadus. — The  participle  in  ^PH^P  is  construed  as  a  noun,  and  the 
whole  phrase  means  thy  pilier.  The  force  of  the  expression  is  impaired 
by  the  circumlocution  of  the  common  version,  the  Lord  that  hath  mercy  on 
thee,  still  more  by  Lowth's  diluted  paraphrase,  Jehovah  who  hcaielh  toward 
thee  the  most  tender  affection. 

11.  WretrJted,  storm-tossed,  couifortless!  Behold  I  am  layiuy  (or  (diout 
to  lay)  thy  stones  in  antimony,  and  I  will  found  thee  upon  sapphires.  The 
past  afflictions  of  God's  people  are  contrasted  with  the  glory  which  awaits 
them,  and  which  is  here  represented  by  the  image  of  a  city  built  of  precious 
stones,  and  cemented  with  the  substance  used  by  oriental  women  in  the 
staining  of  their  eyelids.  (2  Kings  ix.  30,  Jor,  iV.  30.)  This  eye-paint, 
made  of  stibium  or  antimony,  may  be  joined  with  sapphires  as  a  costly 


816  ISAIAH  LI  W  [Vkr.  12. 

substance,  commonly  applied  to  a  more  delicate  use  ;  or  there  mny  hi* 
allusion,  as  Hit/i;^  thinks,  to  the  likeness  between  stones  thus  set  and 
painted  eyes  ;  cither  of  which  suppositions  is  more  probahlf  than  that  of 
Henderson,  viz.  that  the  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  simply  that  of  beauty 
in  general,  for  which  a  thousand  more  appropriate  expressions  might  have 
been  employeJ.  The  stones  meant  are  not  corner  or  foundation-stones,  but 
all  those  used  in  building.  There  is  something  singular,  though  not  per- 
haps significant,  in  the  application  to  these  stones  of  a  verb  elsewhere  used 
only  in  reference  to  animals.  Ivnobel  gravely  observes  that  this  verse  can 
hardly  be  considered  as  expressing  a  real  expectation  of  the  Prophet;  as  if 
it  were  a  literal  description  of  a  city  built  with  gems  instead  of  hewn  stones, 
and  stibium  instead  of  mortar.  Kimchi  indeed  thinks  it  possible  that  all 
this  may  be  veriticd  hereafter  in  the  literal  Jerusalem.  Abarbenel  more 
reasonably  looks  for  its  fultilment  in  a  tigurative  or  spiritual  sense.  Those 
writers  who  insist  upon  applying  the  tirst  verse  of  this  chapter  to  the  city  as 
a  cit}-,  although  not  particularly  named  there,  are  compelled  to  understand 
the  one  before  us  of  the  people,  notwithstanding  the  minuteness  and  pre- 
cision of  the  references  to  a  city.  If  the  city,  as  such,  is  not  meant  when 
stones  and  cement,  gates  and  walls,  are  mentioned,  how  much  less  when 
none  of  these  particulars  appear,  but  everything  suggests  a  diflerent  sub- 
ject.— ^IS?  is  rendered  by  Jerome  per  ordinem,  and  in  the  Septuagint 
avd^axa,  as  if  it  were  a  kind  of  precious  stone,  as  it  appears  to  be  in  1  Chron. 
xxix.  2.  But  the  modern  lexicogi-aphers  identify  it  with  the  Greek  (pZxoi 
and  the  Latin  fitcus,  i.r.  face  or  eye-paint;  and  even  in  Chronicles  it  may 
mean  nothing  more  than  ornamental  stones.  Ludolf  supposes  the  clause 
to  mean  that  the  stones  should  be  powdered  with  antimony.  Luzzatto  like- 
wise assumes  a  hypallage,  and  explains  "  I  will  lay  thy  stones  in  stibium" 
to  mean  I  will  lay  it  on  them.  Henderson's  version  of  i^'^Vp  {tossed)  is 
insullicient,  as  both  etymology  and  usage  require  a  reference  to  storm  or 
tempest.  Kimchi  and  Saadias  apply  it  specifically  to  the  exile,  Jarehi  to 
the  storms  of  sorrow  in  general.  Itoseumiiller  explains  it  as  a  passive  par- 
ticiple put  for  n^yPP,  Gesenius  as  the  usual  Kal  participle  of  "li'D-  It  is 
agreed  that  npn3  is  the  contracted  PuhI  participle  for  '^P™)?,  like  npriT  in 
Hos.  i.  vi.  8. — Maurer  notes  this  as  an  example  of  the  peculiar  sense  in 
which  this  writer  usid  the  verb  Qn3.  (Compare  chaps,  xlix.  18,  li.  3,  12. 
lii.  9.)  Knobel  restricts  the  first  clause  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  espe- 
cially by  Nebuchadnezzar !  Ewald,  very  unnecessarily,  projioses  to  amend 
the  text  by  reading  in  the  last  clause  T?7^.  tln/fuinidnllons.  If  this  be 
the  specific  sense  intended,  which  is  doubtful,  it  is  sufficiently  conveyed 
already  by  the  common  reading. 

12.  And  I  uill  iiuilif  (luj  hattleinentx  (or  jdnuades)  riibif,  and  thij  ijatex  to 
{he)  sjxirldin;/  i/iins,  and  all  thy  harder  to  {he)  stones  of  pUunmre  (or  deliijUt). 
The  splendid  image  of  the  preceding  verse  is  here  continued  and  completed. 
The  precise  kinds  of  gems  here  meant  are  not  of  much  imi)ortance.  The 
essential  idea,  as  appears  from  the  etymology  of  the  nanus,  is  that  of 
sparkling  brilliancy.  The  exact  meaning  of  131?  was  unknown  even  in 
Jerome's  time.  A(piila  and  Theodotion  retain  the  Hebrew  word,  in  which 
they  are  followed  by  Cocceius.  ni"'DL"  is  explained  by  Aben  Ezra  and 
Kimchi  to  mean  windows,  or  other  apertures  admitting  the  light  of  the 
sun.  Hut  the  modern  writers  generally  make  it  a  poetical  description  of 
the  battli'uients  and  spires  of  a  city. — The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  explain 
rr^p.S  ':3S  us  denoting  carved  or  sculptured  stones  ;  but  it-;  obvious  con- 
nection with  the  verb  ^IP,  favours  the  modern  explanation,  sparkling  gems. 


Ver.  13.]  ISAIAH  LIV.  317 

— The  last  phrase  is  a  more  generic  term,  iiu- hiding  all  the  others,  and 
equivalent  to  our  expression,  precious  stones.  So,  too,  /'•135  may  be  collec- 
tive, and  denote  the  whole  congeries  of  buildings  or  their  parts ;  although 
interpreters  are  more  inclined  to  make  it  mean  the  outer  wall  of  a  fortified 
city,  which  is  described  as  built  of  the  same  costly  materials.  But  Gese- 
nius  thinks  it  possible  that  there  may  be  allusion  to  1  Kings  x.  27,  and 
that  the  clause  may  represent  the  ground  within  the  limits  of  the  city  as 
strewn  with  precious  stones  instead  of  pebbles. — The  same  interpreter 
regards  the  <•  in  the  last  clause  as  a  sign  of  the  accusative,  but  Kimchi 
explains  ?  "'jyipy  as  meaning,  "  I  will  change  into  or  render."  Hitzig  thinks 
it  would  have  been  "  Iwijiu'wer,''  and  Knobel  "  jmsseiuler,"  if  the  writer, 
instead  of  saying  that  their  gates  should  be  turned  into  precious  stones, 
had  said  they  should  be  made  of  them. — Vitringa  of  course  puts  a  specific 
sense  on  ever}'  part  of  the  description,  understanding  by  the  "^-IB  of  the 
preceding  verse  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  blood,  by  the  gates  the  synods  of 
the  church,  by  the  battlements  its  advocates  and  champions,  Sec.  Lowth, 
with  better  taste  and  judgment,  says  that  "  these  seem  to  be  general  images 
to  express  beauty,  magnificence,  purity,  strength,  and  solidity,  agreeably 
to  the  ideas  of  the  Eastern  nations,  and  to  have  never  been  intended  to  be 
strictly  scrutinised  or  minutely  and  particularly  explained,  as  if  they  had 
each  of  them  some  precise  moral  or  spiritual  meaning." 

13.  And  all  thy  children  dixciples  of  Jehovah,  and  great  [or  pJerit  if  id) 
the  peaci' of  thy  children.  Ewald  makes  the  sentence  simpW  descriptive, 
by  supplying  are  in  the  pi-esent  tense.  Most  other  writers  supply  shall 
he,  and  thus  make  it  a  prediction  or  a  promise.  C3''33,  when  used  as  a 
distinctive  term,  means  sons;  but  it  is  constantly  employed  where  we  say 
children. — The  common  version,  tawjht  of  God,  which  Lowth  changes 
into  tauf/ht  by  God,  though  not  erroneous,  is  inadequate;  since  "ll^S^.  is  not 
a  participle,  but  a  noun,  used  elsewhere  to  denote  a  pupil,  follower,  or  dis- 
ciple. (See  chap.  viii.  IG.)  The  promise  is  not  one  of  occasional  instruction, 
but  of  permanent  connection  with  Jehovah  as  his  followers,  and  partakers  of 
his  constant  teaching.  That  the  words  are  applicable  to  the  highest  teaching 
of  which  any  rational  being  is  susceptible,  to  wit,  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
making  known  the  Father  and  the  Son,  we  have  our  Saviour's  own  authority 
for  stating.  (See  John  vi.  44,  and  compare  Matt,  xxiii.  8,  Heb.  viii.  11, 
1  John  ii.  27.)  Paul,  too,  describes  believers  as  ^iobihay.roi  in  relation  to 
the  duties  of  their  calling  (1  Thess.  iy.  9).  Similar  promises  under  the 
Old  Testament  are  given  in  Jer.  xxxi.  34  and  elsewhere.  Gesenius  restricts 
the  words  to  the  promise  of  prophetic  inspiration,  the  want  of  which  is 
lamented  in  Lam.  ii.  9,  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9,  and  the  renewal  of  it  promised  in  Joel 
iii.  1.  But  this  restriction  is  regarded  as  unauthorized  even  by  Maurer. 
As  in  chap,  xliii.  9,  all  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  are  included.  The  conse- 
quence of  this  blessed  privilege  is  peace,  no  doubt  in  the  widest  sense  of 
spiritual  welfare  and  prosperity.  (John  xiv.  27  ;  Philip,  iv.  7.)  Ivnobel 
restricts  the  promise  to  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  and  Hendewerk  declares 
that  it  was  broken  in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  To  prevent  the 
tautological  recurrence  of  '^?33,  Koppe  reads  Xi'^  in  the  first  clause,  and 
Dddcrlein  in  the  second,  while  J.  I).  Michaelis,  for  a  diflerent  reason, 
makes  the  change  in  both.  Kticher  and  Rosenmiiller  cite  examples  of  such 
repetition  from  chaps,  xvi.  7,  Iv.  4,  and  Iv.  10,  together  with  Virgil's  f\imous 
line,  Ainbo  forentcs  (liatibw^.  Arcades  ainbo.  Such  precedents  were  surely 
not  required  to  justify  a  bold  but  beautiful  expression  from  the  charges 
brought  against  it  by  pedantic  rhetoricians. — Umbreit  supposes  that  this 


818  ISiJ.UJ  J  J  v.  [Ver.  14. 

verso  contains  an  explanation  of  the  striking  fij^ires  in  the  one  before  it. 
Hitzig  oomparcfi  the  first  clause  with  the  coriesi)on(]iug  part  of  chap.  Ix.  21, 
nn<l  thy  people  all  vj  (lum  are  riijhdons,  which  idea  is  expressed  here  in  the 
next  verse. 

11.  In  righteousnesa  shaU  thou  be  established :  be  far  from  oppression,  for 
thou  fihnlt  7V)t  Jear,  and  from  dcxtrmtion,  for  it  shall  not  come  near  to  thee. 
Au  additional  promise  of  complete  security,  made  more  emphatic  by  its 
repetition  in  a  variety  of  forms.     By  rii/hleonsncsn,  J.  H.  Michaelis  under- 
stMuds  the  righteousness  or  faithfulness  of  God,  securing  the  performance 
of  his  promises  ;  Vitringa,  the  justice  of  the  government  itself;  Rosen- 
miiller  and  the  other  modem  writers,  the  practice  of  righteousness  among 
the  people.     The   first,  however,  comprehends  the  other  as  its  necessary 
consequences,  public  and  private  virtue  being  always  represented  in  Scrip- 
ture as  the  fruit  of  divine  influence.     (Compare  chaps,  i.  27,  ix.  G,  xi.  5, 
xvi,  5  \ — The  modern  gnimniarians  acquiesce  in  Aben  Ezra's  explanation 
of  j;5"l3n  as  a  Hilhpael  form  like  I'^JP,  chap.  lii.  5. — Of  the  next  clause 
there  are  several  interpretations.     The  Septuagint,  Peshito,  and  Vulgate, 
understand  it  as  a  warning  or  dissuasion  from  the  practice  of  oipression. 
But  this  docs  not  agree  with  tlie  context,  which  is  evidently  meant  to  be 
conpolatorj-  and    encouraging.      Still   more  unnatural  is  the  ojinion  of 
Cocceius,  that  p'^V  here  means  spiritual  robbery,  such  as  robbing  God  of 
his  glory,  the  soul  of  its  salvation,  &c.  &c.     Jerome  arbitrarily  renders  it 
cahtmniam.     The  explanation  which  has  been  most  generally  acquiesced  in, 
is  the  one  proposed  by  Kimchi,  who  takes  p^'V  in  a  passive  sense,  i.  e.  as 
meaning  the  experience  of  oppression,  and  supposes  the  imperative  to  re- 
present the  future,  or  a  promise  to  be  clothed  in  the  fonu  of  a  command  : 
"Be  fiu  from  oppression,  i.e.  thou  shall  be  far  from  it."     Examples  of 
this  idiom  are  supposed  to  occur  in  Gen.  xlii.  18;  Deut.  xxxii.  50;  Prov. 
XX.  13.     But  as  tliis  makes  it  necessary  to  give  *3  the  sense  of  yea  with 
Eowth,  or  of  therefore  with  Vitringa,  Gcsenius  and  the  later  writers  choose 
to  adhere  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  imperative,  and  give  PP'l?  in  this  one 
place  the  meaning  of  anxiety,  distress,  which  thoy  suppose  to  be  the  sense 
of  Hi^'L"!/  in  chap,  xxxviii.  14.     The  ground  of  this  gratuitous  assumption  is 
the  parallel  expression  HP.np,  consternation,  fear,  which  seems  to  require  in 
this  place  an  analogous  affection  of  the  mind.     It  will  be  found,  however, 
on  investigation,  that  there  are  several  instances  in  which  nr.np  cannot  pns- 
pibly  mean  fear  {e.  y.  Ps.  Ixxxix.  41  ;  Prov.  x.  14,  xiii.  3,  xviii.  7)  ;  while 
in  every  place  where  it  occurs,  perhrfps  excepting  Jer.  xlviii.  39,  the  other 
sense  dei-trucflnn   is  entirely  appropriate.     On  the  soundest  prineii'les  of 
lexicography,  this  meaning  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  and,  if  adopted 
liere,  forms  an  accurate  parallelsim  to  ?^'V  in  the  sense  which  it  uniformly 
lias  elsewhere   {r.  y.   in   chaps,  xxx.   12,  and   lix.  13),  viz.  oppression  or 
violent  injustice.     Tbat  the  other  term  is  stronger,  only  adds  to  the  expres- , 
sion  the  advantage  of  a  climax.     There  is  no  need,  however,  of  explaining 
the  imperative  as  a  future,  like  the  older  writers,  or  of  taking  *?  in  any  but 
its  usual  and  proper  sense.     Br  far  from  ojipression  is  not  a  promise  c. 
exemption  from  it,  for  that  follows  in  the   next  clause,  which  the   mode' 
interpreters  correctly  understand  as  meaning,  thou  hast  no  cause  to  f 
Tlu;  other  words  are  well  explained  by  Knobel  as  relating  to  the  feelinj'     * 
tlio  person  here  addressed.     Be  far  from  oppression,  /.  e.  far  from  ap 
bending  it.     The  whole  may  then  be  paraphrased  as  follows  :   "  Wher  1^'*^" 
cstaldshed  by  the  exercise  of  righteousness  on  my  part  and  your  ow 
may  put  far  off  all  dread  of  oppression,  for  you  have  no  cause  to  f^n^jj'  '^^^ 


Ver.  15.]  ISAIAH  LIV.  819 

of  destruction ,  for  it  shall  not  come  nigli  you.  With  the  promise  of  this 
clause,  compare  chaps,  xxxii.  16,  and  Ixii.  12. — Kuobel  and  Hcndewerk  are 
actuall}'  able  to  persuade  themselves  that  this  verse  contains  a  specific  pro- 
mise that  Jonisalcm  should  never  be  successfully  besieged  again.  The 
truth  of  the  promise,  in  its  true  sense,  is  vindicated  by  the  liict  that  it 
relates  to  the  course  of  the  new  dispensation  as  a  whole,  with  special 
reference  to  its  final  consummation. 

15.  Loy  tlu'ij  shall  yather,  they  shall  gather ^  not  at  my  sign  (or  siynal), 
Wlto  has  yathercd  against  thee?  He  shall  fall  away  to  thee.  The  promise 
of  the  preceding  verse  is  here  so  modified  as  to  provide  for  every  possible 
contingency.  If  enemies  should  be  assembled,  it  will  not  be  by  divine  com- 
mand (compare  chap.  x.  5,  xlvii.  6),  and  they  shall  end  by  coming  over  to 
the  side  of  those  whom  they  assail.  This,  on  the  whole,  appears  to  be  the 
moaning,  although  every  expression  has  received  a  different  explanation. 
Gesenius  gives  ID  the  sense  of  {'/,  f^s  in  Chaldee,  and  notes  it  as  a  proof  of 
later  date  :  to  which  it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  his  own  examples 
include  some  in  the  oldest  books,  e.g.  Exod.  viii.  22  ;  then,  that  the  as- 
sumption of  this  meaning  in  the  present  case  is  wholly  gratuitous  ;  and 
lasth',  that  it  is  a  dubious  question  whether  any  such  usage  of  the  word 
exists  at  all.  Cocceius  follows  Jarchi  in  giving  "Vtil  the  sense  of  fear,  which 
it  sometimes  has,  e.  g.  in  Deut.  i.  17,  and  Ps.  xxii.  24.  The  Septuagint 
and  Targum  give  it  the  still  more  frequent  sense  of  "  sojourning,  dwelling 
as  a  stranger,''  and  apply  the  clause  to  proselytes.  In  like  manner  Gousset, 
followed  by  Rosenmliller,  understands  the  words  to  moan,  that  no  one  who 
sojourns  with  Israel  shall  remain  a  stranger  to  the  true  religion.  Tremel- 
lius  makes  it  mean  '•  contend,"  and  Ewald,  "  stir  up  bitterness,"  both 
apparently  resorting  to  the  cognate  T^'^i  as  a  source  of  illustration.  Most 
interpreters  agree  with  Kitnchi  in  giving  "I-13  the  same  sense  here  as  in  Ps. 
Ivi.  7,  lix.  4  ;  on  which  places  see  Hengsteuberg's  Commentar}'. — There  is 
also  a  difference  as  to  the  construction.  Luther  makes  the  whole  verse  one 
interrogation.  Gesenius,  as  we  have  already  seen,  makes  the  first  clause 
conditional.  Others  translate  it  as  a  concession,  "  let  them  gather."  But 
the  simplest  and  most  natural  construction  is  to  translate  II^J  as  a 
future  proper.  They  shall  indeed  (or  no  doubt)  gather.  The  promise 
is  not  that  they  should  never  be  assailed,  but  that  they  should  never  be 
conquered. — The  Targum  explains  D^J]?  to  mean  in  the  end,  but  most 
interpreters  understand  it  as  a  simple  negative.  (See  above  on  chap, 
lii.  4.)  "ni'^'?  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  as  another  proof  of  later 
date,  the  preposition  HS  being  confounded  with  the  objective  particle. 
But  here,  again,  examples  of  the  same  analogy  are  found  as  early  as 
Lev.  XV.  18,  24,  and  Josh,  xxiii.  15.  It  is  not  the  occasional  occur- 
r(;nce  of  this  form,  but  its  habitual  use,  that  marks  the  later  writers,  as 
is  well  observed  by  Havernick,  who  explains  the  case  before  us  as  an  effect 
of  the  pause  accent,  while  in  the  one  below  (chap.  lix.  21)  he  maintains 
that  nix  is  the  noun  meaning  sign  (Einleitung,  i.  pp.  198,  222)  ;  which 
last  explanation  is  stih  more  applicable  here,  not  hy  my  sign  or  signal  being 
not  only  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  usage  of  the  same  figure  elsewhere, 
but  yirlding  substantially  the  same  sense  which  the  word  has  according  to 
the  common  explanation,  namely,  not  by  my  authority-,  or,  not  at  my 
command.  (Compare  '^V^'Q,  Hosea  vii.  14.)  Hitzig  throws  these  words 
(^niSO  DpX)  into  a  parenthesis,  "  which  is  not  from  me,"  and  Ewald  gives 
them  the  force  of  a  proviso,  "  only  not  from  me,"  i.e.  no  attack  shall  be 
successful,  provided  it  is  made  without  my  authority.     The  same  writer 


820  ISAIAH  LIV.  [Veb.  16. 

takes  *P  in  its  usual  sense  as  an  interrogative  pronoun,  while  Gesenius  and 
others  make  it  moan  whoever.  (See  above  on  chap.  1.  10.)  Yitringa  and 
the  Enf^lish  Version  separate  ^1<}l  from  the  following  verb,  and  take  the 
latter  absolutely,  "  he  shall  fall,"  t.  e.  perish.  Kuobel  obtains  the  same 
sense  without  a  violution  of  the  accents,  by  supposing  7V  ?D3  to  be  synony- 
mous with  'Jr?  ???,  "  he  shall  fall  before  thee.'  But  the  former  phrase  is 
determined  by  a  settled  usage  to  denote  the  act  of  falling  away,  or  deserting 
to  an  enemy.  (See  1  Chron.  xii.  19,  20  ;  2  Chron.  xv.  9  ;  Jer.  xxi.  9.) 
In  one  case  (1  Sam.  xxix.  8j,  the  same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed  by  the 
verb  when  absolutely  used.  This  explanation  of  the  last  words  is  as  old 
as  the  Septuagint  (ect/  at  xara^ii^cvra/)  and  Vulgate  {adjunyiiur  tihi). 

IG.  Lo,  I  have  created  the  mnith,  hJotcing  into  the  fire  of  coal,  and  hriucfing 
out  a  weapon  for  his  work  ;  and  I  hare  created  the  waster  to  dentroij.  The 
general  meaning  evidently  is,  that  God  can  certainly  redeem  his  pledge, 
because  all  instruments  and  agents  are  alike  at  his  disposal  and  under  his 
control.  He  is  not  only  the  maker  of  the  weapons  of  war,  but  the  maker 
of  their  maker,  as  well  as  of  the  warrior  who  wields  them. — The  pronoun 
in  both  clauses  is  emphatic.  It  is  I  (and  not  another)  who  created  them. 
— The  common  version  of  the  second  member,  that  hlowdh  the  coals  in  the 
fire,  is  inconsistent  with  the  Masoretic  pointing  and  accentuation,  which 
require  DH^  ^'??  to  be  construed  in  regimine,  as  meaning  a  coal  fire,  in 
opposition  to  an  ordinary  fire  of  wood.  The  same  preposition  is  elsewhere 
used  as  a  connective  between  this  verb  and  the  object  blown  upon  or  at 
(Ezek.  xxxvii.  9),  and  in  one  other  place  at  least  in  reference  to  the  same  act 
of  blowing  into  fire  (E/.ek.  xxii.  21),  an  exact  description  of  the  process 
even  at  the  present  day.  A  similar  ghmpsc  into  the  ancient  forge  or  smithy 
has  already  been  aflbrded  in  the  scornful  attack  upon  the  worshippers  of 
idols,  chap.  xli.  G. — Brin(/in;f  out  does  not  mean  bringing  out  of  his  work- 
shop or  his  hands,  as  Knobel  explains  it,  but  bringing  into  shape  or  into 
being,  precisely  as  we  say  bringing  forth,  producing,  although  commonly 
in  reference  to  animal  or  vegetable  life.  Perhaps,  however,  it  would  be 
still  better  to  explain  it  as  meaning  out  of  the  fire,  in  which  case  there  would 
be  a  fine  antithesis  between  blowing  into  it,  and  bringing  the  wrought  iron 

out  of  it. — y?  may  denote  any  instrument,  but  here  derives  from  the  con- 
nection the  specific  sense  oi  xoeajpon.  (See  above,  on  chap.  Hi.  11.)  The 
next  phrase  has  been  variously  understood.  Interpreters  are  much  divided 
as  to  the  antecedent  of  the  suffix  pronoun.  Some  of  the  older  writers  un- 
derstand it  as  applying  to  the  instrument  itself,  brinijiuij  firth  a  weapon  for 
iti  work,  I.  e.  fitted  for  the  work  of  destruction.  Others  suppose  it  to  refer 
by  prolepsis  to  the  warrior  or  destroyer  who  is  mentioned  in  the  last  cbuise, 
lirintjinrj  forth  a  weapon  for  his  work  or  use.  A  still  gi'oatt'r  number  under- 
stand it  as  referring  to  the  smith  or  armourer  himself.  Jksides  the  modem 
English  versions,  which  are  either  unmeaning  or  inaccurate, — accmdintj  to 
his  work  (Lowth),  ly  his  Itihour  (Noyes),  ns  the  result  of  his  work  (liarnes), 
— this  class  includes  the  ingenious  construction  of  the  words  by  Ewald, 
hrim/ing  forfh  a  weapon  as  his  ottm  work,  whereas  I  made  the  d>  adit/  xceapon 
for  drstructiiin.  According  to  this  interpretiition,  n'nV**0  the  destroyer  is  a 
poetical  description  of  the  weapon  before  mentioned  ;  whereas  most  inter- 
])reters  apply  it  to  the  warrior  who  wields  it.  as  if  he  h:id  said,  I  maki'  the 
weapon  of  destruction,  and  1  also  make  the  waster  to  destroy  with  it.  lioth 
these  hypotheses  agree  in  making  the  destruction  mentioned  to  be  that  of 
enemies  in  battle,  one  ascribing  it  directly  to  the  weapon,  and  the  other  to 


Ver.  17.] 


ISAIAH  LIV.  821 


the  combatant.  But  Gesenius  follows  Jarchi  and  Kimchi  in  supposing  the. 
destruction  here  meant  to  be  that  of  the  instruments  themselves,  as  if  he 
had  said,  I  create  the  weapons  of  war,  and  I  also  create  the  destroyer  to 
destroy  them.  Gesenius  seems  to  think  that  this  construction  is  required 
by  the  repetition  of  *?3N),  as  clearly  indicating  an  antithesis ;  but  this  is 
equally  secured  by  Ewald's  version,  and  even  in  the  common  and  more 
natural  construction,  the  repeated  pronoun  has  its  proper  emphasis.  "  It 
is  I  that  create  the  smith  who  makes  the  instruments,  and  it  is  also  I  that 
create  the  destroyer  who  employs  them." 

17.  Every  neapon  {thut)  sliall  be,  formed  against  thee  shall  not  prosper,  and 
even/  tont/ue  (that)  sliall  rise  irilh  thee  in  judgment  thou  shalt  condemn.  This 
is  the  heritaqc  of  the  servants  of  Jehovah,  and  their  righteousness  fromme,  saith 
Jehovah.  The  common  version  of  the  first  clause  expresses  the  same  thought 
in  the  English  idiom,  no  weapon  that  is  formed  against  thee  shall  prosper,  a  form 
of  speech  which  does  not  exist  in  Hebrew,  and  can  only  be  supplied  by  cona- 
biuiiig  negative  and  universal  terms.  The  expression,  though  ambiguous,  is 
determined  by  the  context.  It  cannot  mean  that  only  some  of  the  weapons 
formed  should  take  effect, — which  might  be  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  in 
English,— because  in  the  affirmative  clause  which  follows,  and  which  must 
be  co-extensive  in  its  meaning,  there  is  no  such  ambiguity,  it  being  said 
expressly  that  every  tongue  shall  be  condemned.  Another  ditierence  of 
idiom  here  exemplified  has  reference  to  the  ellipsis  of  the  relative  pronoun, 
which  in  English  is  familiarly  omitted  when  it  is  the  object  of  the  verb,  but 
never  when  its  subject.  Every  iceapon  they  form  would  be  perfectly  intel- 
ligible ;  but  every  weapon  is  formed  (for  which  is  formed)  would  convey  a 
wrong  idea. — Shall  not  prosper,  i.  e.  shall  not  take  effect  or  accomplish  its 
design.  Vitringa  needlessly  supposes  a  litotes  or  meiosis,  as  if  the  words 
meant  that  the  weapon  should  itself  be  destroyed ;  but  this  is  not  expressed, 
even  if  it  is  implied,  which  may  be  questioned. — To  rise  or  stand  in  judg- 
ment, literally /o/-  or  with  respect  to  judgment,  is  to  appear  before  a  judgment- 
seat,  to  involve  the  decision  of  a  judge.  With  thee  may  either  denote 
simply  simultaneous  action,  that  of  standing  up  together,  or  it  may  have 
the  stronger  sense  against  thee,  as  it  seems  to  have  above  in  ver.  15,  and  as 
it  has  in  our  expressions  io  fight  with  or  to  go  to  law  with.  The  tongue  is 
here  personified,  or  used  to  represent  the  party  litigant,  whose  only  weapon 
is  his  speech.  Lowth  translates  ''V.V'^^  thou  shalt  obtain  thy  cause,  which 
is  tlie  true  sense,  but  requires  the  insertion  of  against  before  every  tongue, 
which  in  Hebrew  is  governed  directly  by  the  verb.  For  the  judicial 
or  forensic  usage  of  this  verb,  see  above,  on  chap.  1.  9. — Hitzig  explains 
what  is  here  said  of  litigation  as  a  mere  figure  for  war,  which  is 
literally  described  in  the  foregoing  clause  ;  and  Ivnobel  cites  a  case 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  47)  in  which  the  verb  V:^'?r^  is  applied  to  conquest.  It  is 
also  easy  to  deduce  the  one  sense  from  the  other,  by  assuming  as  the 
intermediate  link  the  idea,  not  confined  to  ancient  nations,  that  success  in 
arms  is  a  criterion  of  right  and  wrong,  the  very  principle  on  which  the  wager 
of  battle,  and  the  ordeal  of  the  duel  rested.  But  in  this  case  it  is  far  more 
satisfactory  and  natural,  instead  of  making  one  clause  figurative  and  the  other 
literal,  to  understand  both  either  literally  or  figuratively  as  a  comprehen- 
sive description  of  all  controversy  or  contention.  Kimchi  supposes  these 
two  clauses  to  reduce  all  opposition  and  hostility  to  that  of  word  and  that 
of  deed  ;  but  there  may  also  be  allusion  to  the  obvious  distinction  between 
warfare  in  its  miUtary  and  its  civil  forms,  or  between  what  is  properly 

VOL.  II.  X 


822  ISAIAH  LV.  [Veb.  1, 

called  war  and  litigation.  In  all  these  varied  forms  of  strife  jt  is  predicted 
that  the  church  shall  be  Yictorious.  (Compare  llom.  viii.  37,  and  2  Cor. 
ii.  14.)  And  this  security  is  represented  as  her  heritage  or  lawful  posses- 
sion and  as  her  right,  i.e.  what  is  due  to  her  from  God,  as  the  judge  of 
the  whole  earth  who  must  do  right.  liowth  and  Ewald  understand  it  to 
me&n  justification  :  "  this  security  shall  prove  that  God  acquits  or  justifies 
me  from  the  charges  brought  against  me  by  my  enemies."  Vitringa  gives 
the  Hebrew  word  the  simple  sense  jus,  or  that  to  which  the  party  is 
entitled.  The  diluted  sense  of  hh'^sing  or  prosperiti/.  which  some  of  the 
later  wTiters  prefer  even  here,  no  longer  needs  a  refutation.  The  English 
Version  makes  this  last  an  independent  clause,  their  riyhtcoiisyiess  is  of  me; 
but  this  is  wholly  unnecessary,  and  afl'ords  a  less  appropriate  sense  than  the 
construction  above  given,  which  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopted. — 
According  to  Ewald,  this  verse  is  an  explanation  of  the  promise  at  the  close 
of  chap.  liii.  Hendewerk  goes  further,  and  identifies  the  heritage  of  this 
verse  with  the  division  of  the  spoil  in  that,  and  the  collective  servants  hero 
named  with  the  individual  servant  mentioned  there.  Rnobel  is  still  more 
explicit,  and  asserts  that  the  Prophet,  having  been  disappointed  in  his 
hope  that  all  Israel  would  return  from  exile,  now  discards  the  use  of  the 
word  servant,  and  confines  himself  to  that  of  the  plural.  The  only  colour 
for  this  singular  assertion  is  the  fact,  no  doubt  remarkable,  that  we  read 
no  more  of  the  "  Servant  of  Jehovah  "  who  has  been  so  often  introduced 
before,  but  often  of  his  "  servants."  It  may  no  doubt  be  said  in  explana- 
tion of  this  fact,  that  the  Prophet  has  completed  his  description  of  that 
august  person  under  his  various  characters  and  aspects,  but  has  still  much 
to  say  of  his  followers  or  sen'ants.  But  a  full  explanation  is  aflorded  only 
by  the  hj'pothesis  assumed  throughout  this  exposition,  that  the  Sersant  of 
Jehovah  is  a  name  applied  both  to  the  Body  and  the  Head,  sometimes  to 
both  in  union,  and  sometimes,  as  in  chap.  liii.  to  one  exclusively  ;  from  which 
it  naturall}'  follows  that  as  soon  as  he  has  reached  the  final  exaltation  of 
Messiah,  and  withdrawn  him  from  our  view,  the  Prophet  thenceforth 
ceases  to  personify  his  members,  and  applies  to  them  the  ordinary  plural 
designation  of  '*  Jehovah's  servants." 


CHAPTER  LV. 

By  the  removal  of  the  old  restrictions,  the  church  is,  for  the  tu-st  time, 
open  to  the  whole  world,  as  a  source  or  medium  of  the  richest  spiritual 
blessings,  ver.  1.  It  is  only  here  that  real  nourishment  can  be  obtained, 
ver.  2.  Life  is  made  sure  by  an  oath  and  covenant,  ver.  8.  The  Messiah 
is  a  witness  of  the  truth  and  a  commander  of  the  nations,  ver.  -1.  As  such 
he  will  be  recognised  by  man}'  nations  who  before  knew  nothing  of  the 
true  religion,  ver.  5.  Tliese  are  now  addressed  directly,  and  exhorted  to 
embrace  the  oflered  opportunity,  ver.  G.  To  this  there  is  everv  encour- 
agement allorded  in  the  divine  mercy,  ver.  7.  The  infinite  disparity 
between  God  and  man  should  have  the  same  eflect,  instead  of  hindering 
it,  vers.  8,  9.  The  commands  and  promises  of  God  must  be  fulfilled, 
vers.  10,  11.  Nothing,  therefore,  can  prevent  a  glorious  change  in  the 
condition  of  the  world  under  the  dispensnliou  of  the  Spirit,  ver.  12.  This 
blessed  renovation,  being  directly  promotive  of  God's  glon,-,  shall  endure 
for  ever,  ver.  18. 

1.  IJo,  every  thirsty  one,  come  yc  to  the  uaters  ;  and  he  to  whom  there  is 


Yer.  1.]  ISAIAH  LV.  323 

no  money,  come  ye,  buy  (food)  and  eat  ;  and  come,  buy,  without  money  and 
tnthout  price,  trine  and  milk.     The  promises  coutaiued  in  the  preceding 
chapters  to  the  church,  are  now  followed  by  a  general  invitation  to  pai° 
take  of  the  blessings  thus  secured.     Water,  milk,  and  wine,  are  here  com- 
bined to  express  the  ideas  of  refreshment,  nourishment,  and  exhilaration. 
Under  these  figures  are  included,  as  Calvin  well  observes,  all  things  essen- 
tial to  the  spiritual  life.     The  Targum  restricts  the  terms  to  intellectual 
sujiplies  :  "  whoever  will  learn,  let  him  come  and  learn."    The  same  appli- 
cation is  made  by  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  and  Vitringa  admits  that  the 
language  is  highly  appropriate  to  the  Gentiles  who  were  seeking  after  wis- 
dom (1   Cor._  i.   22).     But  the  benefits  here  ofi"ered  must  of  coiu'se  bear 
some  proportion  to  the  means  by  which  they  were  secured,  viz.  the  atoning 
death  of  the  Messiah  and  the  influences  of  his  Spirit.     Among  the  earlier 
writers,  Grotius  alone  restricts  the  passage  to  the  period  of  the^Babylonish 
exile.     Even  the  Kabbins  understand  it  as  relating  to  their  present  disper- 
sion.  _  Grotius's  further  limitation  of  the  passage  to  the  teachings  of 
Jeremiah,  as  a  rich  supply  oftered  to  the  heathen,  is  of  course  rejected  by 
the  modern  Germans,  not  so  much  because  of  its  absurditv  as  on  account 
of  its  recognising  Isaiah  as  the  author.     They  adhere,  however,  to  his 
Babylonian  theory,  and  task  their  powers  of  invention  to  explain  the  gene- 
ral terms  of  this  gracious  invitation  in  accordance  with  it.     Thus  Hende- 
werk  regards  the  chapter  as  an  intimation  to  the  exiles  that  they  should 
be  freed  as  soon  as  they  were  brought  into  a  proper  state  of  mind,  together 
with  a  promise  that  when  once  restored  they  should  obtain  for  nothing  in 
their  own  land  what  they  could  not  even  buy  for  money  in  the  lancf  of 
their  oppressors.  _  In  like  manner  Knobel  understands  the  Prophet  as 
declaring  the  conditions  upon  which  the  exile  was  to  cease,  and  promising 
to  those  who  should  return  the  enjoyment  of  unparalleled  abimdance  in  the 
Holy  Land.     It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  this  specific  explanation  of  a 
passage  in  itself  unlimited  is  far  more  easy  than  the  unauthorized  exten- 
sion of  one  really  specific,  because  in  the  former  case  there  is  nothing  in 
the  passage  itself  which  can  be  urged  against  a  limitation  which  is  only 
folse  because  it  is  gratuitous.     The  best  refutation  is  afi'ordcd  by  the  ease 
with  which  a  thousand  other  hmitalions,  once  assumed,  might  be  brought 
into  seeming  agreement  with  the  terms  of  the  prediction.     If,  for  example, 
some  new  critic,  still  more  intrepid  than  his  predecessors,  should  maintain 
that  this  book  is  of  later  date  than  the  Babylonian  exile,  having  been 
written  at  the  period  of  the  Maccabees,  or  even  in  the  days  of  Jos'ephus, 
whatever  difliculties  might  arise  from  definite  allusions  to  anterior  events 
in  other  places,  it  would  require  but  little  ingenuity  to  reconcile  the  fore- 
gone conclusion  with  the  general  terms  of  such  a  prophecy  as  that  before 
us.     The  h}iDothesis  once  granted,  the  details  would  all  seem  to  follow 
of  course.     The  impartial  interpreter  is  therefore  bound  to  resist  all  such 
unauthorised  restrictions,  and  to  give  the  Prophet's  words  their  full  scope, 
as  relating  to  the  benefits  which  God  proposed  from  the  beginning  to 
bestow  upon  the  nations  through  the  medium  of  his  church.     The  mixed 
or  half-way  theory  of  Henderson,  that  this  passage  relates  to  the  Babvlon- 
ish  exile  and  also  to  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  has  all  the  inconveniences 
of  both  the  others  without  the  advantages  of  either.— Most  of  the  modem 
wi-iters   follow  Jarchi  m  explaining  ''in  as  a  mere  particle  of  invitation, 
which  is  variously  expressed  by  Luther  {ii-ohlan !),  Gesenius  (auf),  Be 
Wette  (hal),  &c.     Maurer  insists,  however,  on  the  usual  and  strict  sense 
of  the  particle  as  expressing  pity  for  the  exiles  {heu,  alas !),  not  only  here 


821  ISAIAH  LV.  [Ver.  2. 

but  in  Zech.  ii.  10,  11. — NPy  is  not  properly  a  participle  (t/iirsdiii/),  but  a 
verbal  adjective  [ntlnrst  or  lliirst;/).  Vitriuga  strangely  makes  it  neuter 
(omncsitie)t.s),  although  the  very  nature  of  the  invitation  points  out  persons  as 
the  object  of  address,  and  although  this  is  the  only  fonn  in  which  an  address 
to  persons  could  have  been  expressed  ;  whereas,  if  a  distinction  were  de- 
signed, the  neuter  would,  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  be  represented 
by  the  feminine.  The  combination  of  the  singular  [every  one)  with  the 
plural  verb  {come  ye)  may  be  either  an  idiomatic  licence,  or  intended  to 
extend  the  call  to  every  individual. — The  reference  to  the  water  of  baptism, 
which  some  of  the  Fathers  found  in  this  verse,  is  excluded  by  the  fact  that 
the  water  here  meant  is  not  water  for  washing,  but  water  to  be  drunk. — 
And  he,  after  the  universal  expression  every  one,  does  not  add  a  new  idea, 
but  explains  the  one  expressed  already,  and  is  therefore  equivalent  to  even 
he  in  English.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  and  before  the  second  come, 
which  is  not  incorrectly  rendered  yea  come  in  the  common  version. — To 
xchom  there  U  not  money  is  the  only  equivalent  in  Hebrew  to  our  phrase  who 
has  no  money.  Instead  of  this  generic  term,  Lowth  retains  the  oiiginal 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word,  silver,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Ewald  and 
Umbreit. — 15^  is  not  to  buy  in  general,  but  to  buy  food,  or  still  more 
specifically  to  buy  grain  or  bread  stutis.  It  is  here  absolutely  used,  as  in 
Gen.  xli.  57,  xlii.  2,  5.  Henderson's  paraphrase  (firocnre)  is  too  indefinite, 
and  not  at  all  needed  to  remove  the  seeming  incongruity  of  buying  without 
money  or  any  other  price.  This  apparent  contradiction  was  intended  by 
the  writer  to  express  in  the  strongest  manner  the  gratuitous  nature  of  the 
purchase.  Wine  and  milk  are  combined,  either  as  necessities  or  luxuries, 
by  Jacob  in  Gen.  xlix.  12. — The  images  of  this  verse  are  espentially  the 
same  with  those  in  chaps,  xii.  3,  xxv.  (i,  Ixii.  8,  0,  Ixv.  18  ;  John  iv.  14, 
vii.  37  ;  Ilev.  xxii.  17. — Sanctius,  in  order  to  connect  this  chapter  with  the 
one  before  it,  supposes  the  idea  to  be  that  of  a  feast  provided  in  the  habita- 
tion which  is  there  described  as  having  been  enlarged.  Vitringa  thinks  it 
better  to  call  up  the  image  of  a  market  and  a  public  fountain.  Neither  of 
these  conceptions  would  spontaneously  occur  to  any  ordinary  reader. 

2.  Jl'/iy  uill  ye  iceiyh  money  fur  (that  whieli  is)  not  bread,  and  your  labour 
for  (that  wliieh  is)  not  to  satiety  ?  llearlcen,  hearken  unto  me^  and  eat  (that 
^  wliieli  is)  good,  and  your  soul  shall  enjoy  itself  ifi  fatness.  Tho  gratuitous 
blessings  ofl'ered  by  ^Messiah  are  contrasted  with  the  costly  and  unprofit- 
able labours  of  mankind  to  gain  the  same  end  in  another  way.  It  was  not 
that  they  refused  food,  nor  even  that  they  were  unwilling  to  buy  it ;  but 
they  mistook  for  it  that  which  was  not  nourishing.  In  the  first  clause,  there 
is  reference  to  the  primitive  cuslom  of  weighing  instead  of  couniiug  money, 
from  which  have  arisen  several  of  the  most  familiar  denominations,  such  as 
the  Hebrew  shrlcel,  the  Greek  tuhnt,  the  French  live,  and  the  Knglish 
pound.  The  essential  idea  hero  is  that  of  paying,  liread,  as  Ihe  statf  of 
life,  is  here  and  in  many  other  cases  put  for  food  in  general. — J.alour,  as 
in  chap.  xlv.  11,  meiuis  the  prodnct  or  result  of  lalK)ur.  It  is  well  expressed 
by  Umbreit  {euer  Krmiihetes).  Ewald's  translation  {euer  Krsj)artes)  rather 
suggests  the  idea  of  that  which  is  saved  or  hoarded,  whereas  the  writer 
seems  to  have  in  view  the  immediate  expenditure  of  what  is  earned. — The 
emi)hatic  repetition  of  the  verb  to  hear  may  be  variously  expressed  in  Eng- 
lish as  denoting  to  hear  diligenth',  attentively,  by  all  means,  or  to  purjiose  ; 
but  the  best  translation,  because  it  may  be  considered  as  including  all  the 
reht,  is  that  which  copies  most  exactly  the  peculiar  form  of  the  original. 
The  old  mode  of  doing  this  by  joining  the  participle  with  the  finite  verb 


Vee.  3.J  ISAIAH  LV.  325 

(hearlcming  ye  shall  hearken)  is  at  once  less  exact  and  less  expressive  than 
the  simple  repetition  used  by  Ewald  elsewhere,  although  here  he  introduces 
the  word  rather  (vieluieJir  hurt). — The  mention  of  the  soul  admits  of  two 
explanations.     We  may  give  the  Hebrew  word  its  frequent  sense  of  ajiprtite, 
exactly  as  the  appetite  is  said  in  common  parlance  to  be  gratified,  indulged, 
pampered,  mortified,  &c.     This  is  a  good  sense  in  itself,  but  less  in  keep- 
ing with  the  rest  of  the  description  than  another  which  may  be  obtained  by 
supposing  that  the  soul  is  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  that  the 
hunger  and  the  food  referred  to  are  not  bodily  but  spiritual.     Most  of  the 
modern  writers  explain  'O^i^  as  an  imperative  used  for  the  future  according 
to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom.     (See  chap.  xlv.  22,  and  Gen.  xlii.  18.)     But 
there  is  no  need:  of  departing  from  the  strict  construction  which  makes  -vpX 
a  command.  '  The  promise  is  not  that  if  they  hearkened  they  should  eat, 
but  that  if  theylRearkened  and  ate  they  should  be  happy.— f70oi  is  emphatic, 
meaning  that  which  is  truly  good,  in  opposition  to  the  7w-bread  of  the  first 
clause,  which  Vitringa  and  the  later  writers  take  as  a  peculiar  compound 
plirase  like  YVi<^  (chap.  x.  15),  ^^'i^^  and  nn-N^  (chap.  xxxi.  3).     Fat,  by 
a  figure  common  in  all  languages,  is  put  for  richness  both  of  food  and  soil 
(See  chap.  v.  1 ;  Ps.  xxxvi.  9,  Ixiii.  G ;  Job  xxx\'i.  16.)     There  is  some- 
thing almost  laughable  in  RosenmiUler's  saying  that  the  orientals  are  ex- 
tremely fond  of  gross  food,  when  the  fact  is  notoriously  otherwise,  and  such 
a  charge  has  often  been  alleged  against  the  Germans,  either  truly  or  falsely. 
Luther  degrades  the  text  itself  by  rendering  it  shall  grow  fat.     As  a  sample 
of  the  opposite  extreme  of  false  refinement,  we  may  give  Lowth's  paraphrase, 
your  soul  shall  feast  itself  ivith  the  richest  delicacies. — The  application  of  the 
figures  is  self-evident  upon  the  general  hypothesis  before  assumed.     Aben 
Ezra  and  Kimchi,  who  suppose  the  blessing  oflfered  to  be  purely  intellectual, 
apply  the  first  clause  to  foreign  or  exotic  wisdom  (>!)": ^:)   r^)V^\>).     But  the 
hardest  task  devolves  on  those  who  understand  the  passage  as  relating  ex- 
clusively to  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  Babylon.     In  what  sense  could 
the  exiles  there  be  said  to  spend  their  money  for  what  was  not  bread,  and 
their  labour  for  what  did  not  satisfy  ?     Koppe  was  brave  encnigh  to  make 
it  refer  literally  to  the  bad  bread  which  the  Jews  were  compelled  to  eat  in 
Babylonia.     Hitzig  only  ventures  to  make   this  a  part  of  the   calamity 
described,  which  he  explains,  with  Gesenius,  as  consisting  in  the  slavery 
to  which  they  were  subjected,  not  as  tributaries  merely,  but  as  labourers 
without  reward.     (Compare  Josh.  ix.  27  ;  1  Kings  ix.  21.)     Maurer  refers 
the  clause  to  the  expensive  worship  of  idols,  from  whom  no  favours  were 
obtained  in  recompence.     (See  chap.  xlvi.  G,  7.)     Ivnobel  sees  merely  a 
strong  contrast  between  Babylon,  where  the  Jews  spent  much  without  en- 
joj-ment  or  advantage,  and  the  Holy  Land,  where  they  should  enjoy  much 
and  spend  nothing.     The  last  he  might  consiftently  regard  as   a  mere 
visionary  expectation  ;  but  the  only  proof  which  he  adduces  of  the  fact  first 
mentioned  is  the  reference  to  Israel's  oppression  in  chap.  xiv.  3,  xlvii.  6, 
li.  14.     A  comparison  of  these  interpretations  with  the  true  one  will  shew 
how  much  is  gained  by  the  assumption  of  the  Babylonian  theory,  and  how 
strong  the  motive  must  be  which  induces  men  of  ingenuity  and  learning  to 
adopt  it  in  spite  of  the  embarrassments  with  which  it  is  encumbered. 

8.   Incline  your  ear  and  come  unto  me,  hear  and  your  soul  shall  live  (or 

let  it  live,  and  I  uill  make  uith  you  ait  everlasting  covenant,  the  sure  mercies 

of  David.     This  is  obviously  a  repetition  of  the  same  ofl'er  in  another 

•  form  ;  which  shews  that  the  Wo  preceding  verses  cannot  have  respect  to 


826  ISAIAH  LV.  [Veb.  4. 

literal  food  or  bodily  Bubsistonce.  Here  again,  the  use  of  the  word  soul 
necessarily  suggests  the  thought  of  spiritual  life,  and  this  sense  is  admitted 
here  by  Kimchi  and  Abarbcnel.  Neither  of  the  animal  life,  nor  of  the  ap- 
petite, could  it  be  said  that  it  should  live.  The  abbreviated  form  *nj^  may 
either  givo  the  future  an  imperative  sense,  or  be  taken  as  a  poetical  substitute 
for  the  full  form  of  the  future  proper.  The  regular  construction  of  rin^  rro 
is  with  DV.  That  with  ?,  according  to  Yitringa,  simply  means  a  promise; 
according  to  Gosenius,  an  engagement  on  the  pai't  of  a  superior.  (See 
chap.  lid.  8,  Josh.  ix.  15,  xxiv.  25.)  There  is  no  need  of  assuming  a 
zeugma  in  the  last  clause,  with  Gesenius,  or  supposing  ri"i3  to  include  the 
idea  of  bestowing,  with  Ivnobel ;  since  the  mercies  of  David  ai'c  not  directly 
governed  by  that  verb,  but  simply  added  as  an  explanation  of  the  everlasting 
covenant.  As  if  he  had  said,  I  will  make  with  you  au  everlasting  covenant, 
which  shall  be  the  same  with  the  mercies  of  David.  Of  this  phrase,  which 
is  also  used  by  Solomon  (2  Chron.  vi.  42),  there  are  three  interpretations. 
The  rabbins  and  Grotius  understand  it  to  mean  favours,  like  those  which 
were  enjoyed  by  David.  Cocceius  regards  David  as  a  name  of  the  Mes- 
siah, as  in  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23,  24,  to  which  he  adds  Hos.  iii.  5;  but  this 
may  be  understood,  with  Hitzig,  as  merely  meaning  David's  house  or 
family.  The  third  explanation,  and  the  one  most  commonly  adopted,  is, 
that  the  mercies  of  David  means  the  mercies  promised  to  him,  with  parti- 
cular reference  to  2  Sam.  \ii.  8-lG.  (Compare  1  Chron.  xvii.  11,  12,  and 
Ps.  Ixxxix.  3,  4.)  As  the  main  theme  of  this  promise  was  a  perpetual 
Buccessiou  on  the  throne  of  David,  it  was  fulfilled  in  Christ,  to  whom  it  is 
applied  in  Acts  xiii.  34.  (Compare  Isa.  ix.  6,  and  Luke  i.  32,  33.)  The 
Greek  word  Jff/a  there  used  is  borrowed  from  the  Septuagint  Version,  and 
is  so  far  correct,  as  it  conveys  the  idea  of  a  sacred  and  inviolable  engage- 
ment. That  the  promise  to  David  was  distinct  from  that  respecting  Solo- 
mon (1  Chron.  xxii.  8-18),  and  had  not  reference  to  any  immediate  des- 
cendant, Henderson  has  she\\n  from  1  Chron.  xvii.  12-14.  Thus  under- 
stood, the  text  contains  a  solemn  assurance  that  the  promise  made  to  David 
should  be  faithfully  perfomied  in  its  original  import  and  intent.  Hence 
the  mercies  of  David  are  called  sure,  i.  e.  sure  to  be  accomplished ;  or  it 
might  be  rendered  faithful,  credible,  or  trusted,  without  any  material  effect 
upon  the  meaning.  With  this  interpretation  of  the  verse  may  be  compared 
that  of  Ivnobel,  who  explains  it  as  a  promise  that  the  theocratic  covenant 
should  be  restored  (as  if  it  had  been  abrogated),  or  of  Rosenmiiller,  who  sup- 
poses it  to  have  been  given  to  console  the  exiles  under  the  despondency  arising 
from  the  ruin  of  the  House  of  David  during  the  captivity,  and  the  apparent 
violation  of  the  promise  which  had  long  before  been  given  to  himself.  So 
far  as  there  is  any  truth  in  this  interpretation,  it  is  but  a  small  part  of  the 
full  sense  of  the  passage  as  relating  to  the  everlasting  reign  of  the  Messiah. 
4.  Lo,(iis)  a  uilness  of  nations  I  have  (jivini  him,  a  chief  and  commander 
of  nations.  The  emphasis  appears  to  be  on  nations,  which  is  therefore 
repeated  without  change  of  form.  The  essential  meaning  is  the  same  as 
that  of  chap.  xlix.  6,  viz.,  that  the  Messiah  was  sent  to  bo  the  Sa^^our  not 
of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles.  His  relation  to  the  latter  is 
expressed  b}'  three  terms.  First  he  is  a  witness,  i.e.  a  witness  to  the 
truth  (John  xviii.  37),  and  a  witness  against  sinners  (Mai.  iii.  5).  The 
same  office  is  ascribed  to  Christ  in  Rev.  i.  5,  iii,  14.  (Compare 
1  Tim.  vi.  13.)  The  application  of  this  verse  to  the  Messiah,  therefore,  is 
entirely  natural  if  taken  by  itself.  But  an  objection  is  presented  by  the 
fact  that  the  Messiah  is  not  named  in  the  foregoing  context.     It  is  hardly 


Yer.  4.]  ISAIAH  LV.  327 

an  adequate  solution  to  affix'm  with  Yitringa  that  the  verse  must  be  con- 
nected with  the  fifty-third  chapter,  and.  the  fifty-foui-th  considered  paren- 
thetical. Cocceius  refers  the  suffixes  to  David  in  ver.  3,  which  he  explains 
there  as  a  name  of  the  Messiah.  The  same  resort  is  not  accessible  to 
Henderson,  who  arbitrarily  makes  David  m  the  third  verse  mean  the  ancient 
king,  and  in  the  fourth  the  Messiah ;  an  expedient  which  may  be  employed 
to  conquer  any  difficulty.  All  the  modern  Germans  except  Umbrcit  under- 
stand the  verse  before  us  as  describing  the  honom's  actually  put  upon  king 
David.  Lo,  £  gave  him  as  a  witness  of  the  nations,  a  leader  and  commander 
of  the  nations.  This  is  certainly  the  simplest  and  most  natural  construction 
of  the  sentence,  but  not  one  without  its  difficulties.  According  to  general 
analogy,  the  interjection  |n  has  reference  not  to  a  past  event,  but  to  one 
either  present  or  future.  This  argument  from  usage  is  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  in  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse  does  undoubtedly  relate  to 
the  future,  and  that  the  connection  of  the  verses  is  obscure  and  abrupt  if 
that  before  us  bo  referred  to  David.  Another  difficulty  is,  that  Da\id 
could  not  with  truth  be  so  emphatically  styled  the  chief  or  leader  of  the 
nations.  For  although  he  did  subdue  some  foreign  tribes,  they  did  not 
constitute  the  main  part  of  his  kingdom,  and  the  character  in  which  the 
Scriptures  always  represent  him  is  that  of  a  theocratic  king  of  Israel. 
Another  difficulty  in  relation  to  the  use  of  the  term  witness  is  evaded  by 
supposing  "ly,  in  this  one  place  to  mean  a  ruler  (Gesenius)  or  a  legislator 
(Maurer).  Ewald's  translation  of  the  word  by  law  seems  to  be  an  inad- 
vertence. This  violation  of  a  perfectly  defined  and  settled  usage  would  be 
treated  by  these  writers  in  an  adversary  as  a  proof  of  ignorance  or  mala 
fides.  The  only  shadow  of  evidence  which  they  adduce  from  usage  or 
analogy,  is  the  assertion,  equally  unfounded,  that  the  verbal  root  sometimes 
means  to  enjoin,  and  the  collateral  derivatives  nny  and  nny.  mean  laws  or 
precepts.  The  utmost  that  can  be  established  by  a  philological  induction 
is,  that  in  some  cajses  the  alleged  sense  would  be  relevant,  whereas  the 
proper  one  of  testimony  is  in  every  case  admissible.  If  in  the  face  of  these 
facts  we  may  still  invent  a  new  sense  for  a  word  which  has  enough  already 
to  account  for  every  instance  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  there  are  no  such  things 
as  principles  or  laws  of  lexicography,  and  every  critic  has  a  full  discretion 
to  confound  the  application  of  a  term  with  its  essential  meaning  when  he 
pleases.  As  to  its  being  here  combined  with  other  words  expressive  of 
authority,  let  it  be  noted  that  words  thus  connected  cannot  alway  be  syno- 
nymous, and  in  the  next  place  that  the  usual  meaning  of  the  term,  as 
applied  to  the  Messiah  or  to  God,  implies  as  much  authority  as  either  of 
the  others,  for  it  means  an  authoritative  witness  of  the  truth,  and  this  is 
substantially  equivalent  to  Prophet,  or  Divine  Teacher :  an  ofiice  with 
which  David  never  was  invested  in  relation  to  the  Gentiles.  The  more 
restricted  sense  of  monitor  (ITITD)  which  Kimchi  puts  upon  the  word  is 
no  less  arbitrary  than  the  vague  one  (21)  given  in  the  Targum. — T*^^  is 
properly  the  one  in  front,  the  foremost,  and  is  therefore  naturally  used  to 
signify  a  chief  or  leader.  This  title  is  expressly  applied  to  the  Messiah  by 
Daniel  (ix.  25),  and  the  corresponding  titles  ao-^m  and  a^y/iyoc,  to  Christ  in 
the  New  Testament  (Acts  iii.  15,  Heb.  ii.  10,  Hov.  i.  5),  considered  both 
as  an  example  and  a  leader. — The  thii'd  name  (HIVP),  being  properly  the 
participle  of  a  verb  which  means  to  command,  might  be  considered  as 
equivalent  either  to  j^receptor  or  commander,  both  derivatives  fi'om  verbs  of 
the  same  meaning,  Now  as  one  of  these  definitions  agrees  well  with  the 
explanation  which  has  been  adopted  of  the  first  title  (witness),  and  the  other 


828  ISAIAH  LV.  [Ver.  5. 

with  the  obvious  meanin{»  of  the  second  (leader),  and  as  the  offices  of  pre- 
ceptor and  commander  are  by  no  means  incompatible,  and  actually  meet  in 
Christ,  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  excluding  either  iu  the 
case  before  us.  At  the  same  time,  let  it  be  observed  that  as  njV  sometimes 
means  to  command  in  a  military  sense,  but  never  perhaps  to  teach  or  give 
instruction,  the  idea  of  commander  must  predominate  in  any  c:ise,  and  is 
entitled  to  the  preference,  if  either  must  be  chosen  to  the  entire  exclusion 
of  the  other.  —  Of  the  objections  which  the  modern  writers  urge  against  the 
application  of  this  verse  to  the  Messiah,  that  which  they  appear  to  consider 
the  most  cogent  and  conclusive  is  precisely  that  which  we  have  seen,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  book,  to  be  the  weakest  and  most  groundless,  namely, 
that  these  Later  Prophecies  know  nothing  of  a  personal  Messiah  ;  which  is 
established  in  the  usual  manuer  by  denying  all  the  cases  seriatim,  and 
refusing  to  let  one  of  them  be  cited  in  defence  or  illustration  of  another. 
It  is  proper  to  observe  in  this  connection,  that  both  Umbreit  and  Hende- 
werk  retain  the  usual  sense  of  "^V.,  and  that  the  latter  understands  the  verso 
as  a  description  of  the  office  which  the  Jewish  people  should  discharge,  in 
reference  to  the  other  nations  after  their  return  from  exile.  This  is  a 
near  approach  to  the  correct  intei-pretation,  and  may  be  blended  with  it  by 
recurring  to  the  exegetical  hypothesis,  of  which  we  have  so  often  spoken, 
that  the  Body  and  the  Head  are  often  introduced  as  one  ideal  person. 
This,  though  at  variance  with  Kuobel's  notion  that  the  Prophet  has  now 
ceased  to  speak  of  Israel  as  one  individual  servant  of  Jehovah  (see  above, 
on  chap.  liv.  17),  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  general  tenor  of  the 
Scriptures  as  to  the  vocation  and  the  mission  both  of  Christ  and  of  the 
church. 

5.  Lo,  a  nation  {that)  thou  knowest  not  thou  shall  call,  and  a  nation  (that) 
have  not  knoxon  thee  shall  run  unto  thee/or  the  sake  of  Jehovah  thy  God,  and 
for  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  for  he  hath  (jlorified  thee.  The  question  which 
has  chiefly  divided  interpreters,  in  reference  to  this  verse,  is,  whether  the 
ofcject  of  address  is  the  Messiah  or  the  church.  The  former  opinion  is 
maintained  by  Calvin,  Sanctius,  and  others  ;  the  latter  by  Grotius  and 
Vitringa.  The  masculine  forms  prove  nothing  either  way  ;  because  tlio 
church  is  sometimes  presented  in  the  person  of  Israel,  and  sometimes  per- 
sonified as  a  woman.  The  most  natural  supposition  is,  that  after  speaking 
of  the  Messiah,  he  now  turns  to  him  and  addresses  him  directly.  If  this 
be  so,  the  verse  affords  an  argument  against  the  application  of  ver.  4  to 
David,  who  could  not  be  the  subject  of  such  a  promise  ages  after  his 
decease.  At  the  same  time,  the  facility  with  which  the  words  can  bo 
applied  to  either  subject,  may  bo  considered  as  confirming  the  hypothesis 
that  although  the  ^lessiah  is  the  main  subject  of  the  verse,  the  church  is 
not  entirely  excluded.  The  construction  of  the  second  '^5  with  two  plural 
verbs  shews  it  to  be  collective.  Lowth's  version,  the  nation,  is  unnecessary 
here,  although  the  article  is  frequently  omitted  both  in  poetry  and  elevated 
prose. — Their  nnining  indicates  the  eagerness  with  which  they  shall  attach 
themselves  to  him  and  ingiige  in  his  service.  According  to  Jarchi,  thou 
shall  call  means  thou  shall  call  into  thy  service.  (See  Job  xix.  10.) — For 
he  hath  [jlorifiel  thrc.  This  expression  is  repeatedly  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment with  reference  to  Christ.  (See  John  xvii.  1,  r»,  Acts  iii.  18.) 
Henderson  gives  *?  wlmt  is  supposed  by  some  lo  bo  its  primary"  sense,  viz., 
that  of  a  relative  promum  [uho  hath  (florificd  thee);  which  is  wholly  unne- 
cessary here,  and  rests  upon  a  very  dubious  etymological  assumption. — 
The  form  of  expression  in  a  part  of  this  verse  seems  to  bo  borrowed  from 


Ver.  G,  7.]  ISAIAH  L  V.  829 

2  Sam.  xxii.  44,  but  the  resemblance  neither  proves  that  the  Messiah  is 
the  subject  of  that  passage,  nor  that  I)a\-id  is  the  subject  of  this. — The 
nation  means  of  course  the  Gentiles.  What  is  said  of  the  Messiah's  not 
knowing  them  is  thus  explained  b}'  Schmidius.  "  Messias  non  noverat 
Gentiles  ut  ecclesia?  suaj  membra  actu,  et  Gentiles  ipsum  non  noverant, 
saltem  fide,  plerique  etiam  de  ipso  quicquam  non  audiverant." 

G.  Seek  ye  Jehovah  tvhile  he  may  be  found  ;  call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is 
near.  The  3,  as  usual  when  joined  with  the  infinitive,  is  a  particle  of 
time.  The  literal  translation  would  be,  in  his  being  found,  in  his  being 
near.  By  a  sudden  apostrophe  he  turns  from  the  Messiah  to  those  whom 
he  had  come  to  save,  and  exhorts  them  to  embrace  this  great  salvation,  to 
be  reconciled  with  God.  A  similar  exhortation,  implying  like  the  present 
that  the  day  of  grace  is  limited,  occurs  in  Zeph.  ii.  2.  There  are  two 
limitations  of  the  text  before  us,  which  have  no  foundation  but  the  will  of 
the  interpreters.  The  first  restricts  it  to  the  Jews  in  general,  either  making 
it  a  general  advice  to  them  to  seize  the  opportunity  of  restoration  (Rosen- 
miillcr),  or  a  special  warning  to  those  hardened  sinners  who  refused  to  do 
so  (Knobel),  and  particularly  such  as  were  addicted  to  idolatr}'.  These 
expositions  are  doubly  arbitrary,  first  in  restricting  the  passage  to  that 
period  of  Jewish  historj',  and  then  in  assuming  the  imaginary'  fact  that  a 
portion  of  the  exiles  were  unwilling  to  retui-n ;  the  passages  appealed  to  in 
support  of  which  are  wholly  inconclusive.  An  equally  unfounded  but  less 
violent  assumption  is,  that  this  passage  has  respect  to  the  Jews  not  at  that 
time  merely,  but  in  general,  as  distinguished  from  the  Gentiles.  Like 
many  other  similar  hypotheses,  when  this  is  once  assumed,  it  is  easy  to 
accommodate  the  general  expressions  of  the  passage  to  it ;  but  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  in  the  whole  chapter  any  adequate  reason  for  applying  its 
commands  and  exhortations  either  to  Gentiles  or  to  Jews  exclusively.  In 
either  case  there  were  peculiar  reasons  for  obeying  the  injunction,  but  it 
seems  to  be  addressed  to  both  alike.  The  Jew  had  great  cause  to  beware 
lest  the  Gentile  should  outstrip  him,  and  the  Gentile  might  be  reasonably 
urged  to  partake  of  those  advantages  which  hitherto  had  been  restricted  to 
the  Jew  ;  but  both  are  called  to  the  same  duty,  namely,  that  of  seeking 
and  calling  upon  God  :  expressions  elsewhere  used  both  severally  and 
together  to  express  the  whole  work  of  repentance,  faith,  and  new  obedience. 
— Lowth  seems  to  find  the  common  version  of  the  last  word  (uear)  too 
simple,  and  enlarges  it  accordingly  to  near  at  hand. 

7.  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  ivay,  and  the  man  of  iniquity  his  thoughts, 
and  let  him  return  unto  Jehovah,  and  he  irill  have  mercy  on  him,  and  to  our 
God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon  (literally,  multiply  to  pardon).  This 
is  a  continuation  of  the  foregoing  call,  and  at  the  same  time  an  explanation 
of  the  way  in  which  it  was  to  be  obeyed.  We  are  here  taught  that  the 
seeking  of  Jehovah,  and  the  calling  upon  him  just  enjoined,  involve  an 
abandonment  of  sin,  and  a  return  to  righteousness  of  life.  The  imperative 
version  of  the  futures  is  warranted,  if  not  required,  by  the  abbreviated  form 
^K'J.  Even  the  future  form,  however,  would  convey  the  same  essential 
meaning  both  in  Hebrew  and  in  English.  The  wicked  shall  forsake,  &e.,  is 
in  fact  the  strongest  form  of  a  command.  Way  is  a  common  figure  for  the 
course  of  life.  What  is  here  meant  is  the  evil  tvay,  as  Jeremiah  calls  it 
(Ivi.  1),  i.  e.  a  habitually  sinful  course. — ]'}^  is  a  negative  expression,  strictly 
meaning  non-existence  or  nonentity,  and  then,  in  a  secondary  moral  sense, 
the  destitution  of  all  goodness,  which  is  put,  by  a  common  Hebrew  idiom, 
for  the  existence  of  the  very  opposite.     The  common  version  [the  nnright- 


880  ISAIAH  LV.  [Ver.  8. 

eons  man)  gives  the  sense  but  not  the  whole  force  of  tlic  original  constnic- 
tion,  which  is  here  retained  hy  Hendewerk  {der  Mann  dcr  Missethat).  The 
Bamo  writer  speaks  of  these  two  verses  as  an  inteiTuption,  by  the  Prophet, 
of  the  divine  discourse.  This  criticism  is  founded  on  the  mention  of  Jehovah 
in  the  third  person,  which  is  u  form  of  speech  constantly  occurring,  even 
where  he  is  himself  the  ppeaker,  not  to  mention  the  futility  of  the  assump- 
tion that  the  passage  is  dramatic,  or  a  fonnal  dialogue.  It  mattered  little  to 
the  writer's  purjiose  whether  he  seemed  to  be  himself  the  speaker  or  a  mere 
reporter  of  tlio  words  of  God,  to  whom  in  either  case  they  mu^t  be  finally 
ascribed.  Hence  the  constant  alternation  of  the  first,  second,  and  third 
persons,  in  a  style  which  sets  all  rules  of  unity  and  rigid  laws  of  composi- 
tion at  defiance. — The  word  translated  llmuijlas  is  commonly  employed,  not 
to  denote  opinions,  but  designs  or  purposes,  in  which  sense  it  is  joined  with 
vxiy,  in  order  to  express  the  whole  drift  of  the  character  and  life.  To 
return  to  God  in  both  these  respects  is  a  complete  description  of  repentance, 
imph  iug  an  entire  change  of  heart,  as  well  as  life. — The  indirect  construc- 
tion of  -inpn^'l,  which  is  given  in  most  modern  versions  {that  he  may  have 
mercy  on  him),  is  not  only  a  gi'atuitous  intrusion  of  ihe  occidental  idiom,  but 
injurious  to  the  sense,  by  making  that  contingent  which  is  positively  pro- 
mised. The  encouragement  to  seek  God  is  not  merely  that  he  7nay,  but 
that  he  ivill  have  mercy.  Lowth's  decoction  of  the  same  words  {toill 
receive  him  with  compassion)  is  enfeebling  in  another  w  ay,  and  inexact ; 
because  the  act  of  receiving  is  implied,  not  expressed,  and  the  verb  denotes 
not  mere  compassion,  but  gratuitous  and  sovereign  mercy.  There  is  further 
encouragement  contained  in  the  expression  onr  God.  To  the  Jew  it  would 
suggest  motives  drawn  from  the  covenant  relation  of  Jehovah  to  his  people  ; 
while  the  Gentile  would  regard  it  as  an  indh-ect  assurance,  that  even  he  was 
not  excluded  from  God's  mercy.  Another  weakening  of  this  sentence  is 
effected  by  the  modern  version  of  the  last  clause  as  a  mere  description 
(Lowth, /or  he  ahoundcth  in  forgiveness),  and  not  as  an  explicit  promise 
that  he  will  abundantly  forgive,  which  is  not  only  the  natural  and  obvious 
import  of  the  terms,  but  imperatively  required  by  the  fuvom-ite  law  of 
parallelism. 

8.  For  my  thouyhts  (air)  not  yo)ir  thottghts,  nor  your  icoys  my  uays,  saith 
Jehovah.  Clear  and  simple  as  these  words  are  in  themselves,  they  have 
occasioned  much  dispute  among  interpreters,  in  reference  to  their  nexus 
with  what  goes  before.  The  earliest  commentators,  Jews  and  Christians, 
seem  to  have  understood  them  as  intended  to  meet  an  objection  to  the  pro- 
mise, arising  from  its  vastncss  and  its  freeness,  by  assurmg  us  that  such 
forgiveness,  however  foreign  from  the  feelings  and  the  practices  of  men,  is 
not  beyond  the  reach  of  the  divine  compassion.  As  if  he  had  said  "to  you 
fuch  Ibrgiveness  may  appear  impossible  ;  but  my  thoughts  are  not  your 
thoughts,  neither  your  w  ays  my  ways."  This  is  the  sense  put  upon  the  words 
by  Cyril,  Abcn  E/ra,  Kin.ehi,  G^^colampadius,  Piscator,  and  Henderson, 
Thus  understood,  the  text  may  be  compared  with  Matt.  xix.  2(1.  Another 
explanation,  that  of  Vilringa,  rests  upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  words 
have  reference  to  the  Jews,  and  were  intended  to  correct  their  prejudice 
against  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  as  at  variance  with  the  pn)niises  of  God 
to  themselves.  As  if  lie  had  said,  "You  may  tliink  the  extension  of  my  grace 
to  them  a  departure  fronj  my  settled  ways  and  purposes ;  but  my  thoughts 
arc  not  your  thouglits,  nor  your  ways  my  ways."  This  specific  application 
of  the  words  could  scarcely  be  suggested  to  any  ordinary  reader,  either  by 
the  text  or  context,  and  at  most  con  only  be  considered  as  included  in  its 


Yer.  9.J  ISAIAH  L  V.  331 

general  import.  Jerome  and  Rosenmiiller,  while  they  seem  to  acqiaiesce  in 
the  principle  of  the  interpretation  first  proposed,  so  far  modify  it  as  to  make 
the  faithfulness  and  truth  of  the  divine  assurance  a  prominent  idea.  This 
sense  is  also  put  upon  the  words  by  Gesenius  and  several  of  the  later  writers, 
who  suppose  the  meaning  of  this  verse  to  be  determined  by  the  analogy  of 
vers.  10,  11,  and  accordingly  explain  it  as  denoting  the  irrevocable  nature  of 
God's  purposes  and  pi'omises.  In  this  sense,  it  may  be  considered  parallel 
to  Num.  xxiii,  19,  and  1  Sam.  xv.  29,  Isa.  xxxi.  2,  xlv.  23.  But  this  is  neither 
the  natural  meaning  of  the  words,  nor  one  which  stands  in  any  obvious  rela- 
tion to  what  goes  before ;  in  consequence  of  which  some  who  hold  it  are 
under  the  necessity  of  denying  that  the  ^3  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  has 
its  proper  causal  meaning.  It  is  indeed  hard  to  see  any  coherence  in  this 
sequence  of  ideas,  "let  the  wicked  man  repent,  for  my  promise  is  irrevocable." 
This  objection  does  not  lie  against  another  very  ancient  explanation  of  the 
passage,  that  proposed  by  Jarchi,  but  maintained  by  scarcely  any  later  writer 
besides  Sanctius.  This  hypothesis  is  founded  on  the  obvious  correspondence 
of  the  terms  employed  in  this  verse  and  in  that  before  it,  and  especially  the 
parallel  expression's  ways  and  thourjhts,  there  applied  to  man,  and  here  to 
God.  According  to  this  last  interpretation,  we  have  here  a  reason  given 
why  the  sinner  must  forsake  his  ways  and  thoughts,  viz.  because  they  are 
incurably  at  variance  with  those  of  God  himself:  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake 
his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts ;  for  my  thoughts  are  not  your 
thoughts,  neither  your  ways  my  ways."  Vitringa's  objection  to  this  exposi- 
tion, that  the  fact  asserted  is  too  obvious  and  familiar  to  be  emphatically 
stated,  is  an  arbitrary  allegation,  as  to  which  the  tastes  of  men  may  natu- 
rally dili'er.  There  is  more  weight  in  the  objection  that  the  moral  dis- 
similitude between  God  and  man  would  hardly  be  expressed  by  a  reference 
to  the  height  of  the  heavens  above  the  earth.  But  the  ditierence  in  question 
is  in  fact  a  ditierence  of  elevation,  on  the  most  important  scale,  that  of 
morals,  and  might  therefore  be  naturally  so  expressed.  At  all  events,  this 
interpretation  has  so  greatly  the  advantage  of  the  others,  in  facility  and 
beauty  of  connection  with  what  goes  before,  that  it  must  be  considered  as 
\  at  least  affording  the  formal  basis  of  the  true  interpretation,  but  without 

\  excluding  wholly  the  ideas  which,  according  to  the  other  theories,  these 
words  express.  They  may  all  be  reconciled  indeed  by  malcing  the  disparit}' 
asserted  have  respect,  not  merely  to  moral  purity,  but  also  to  constancy, 
benevolence,  and  wisdom.  As  if  he  had  said,  "You  must  forsake  your  evil 
ways  and  thoughts,  and  by  so  doing,  you  inf\xllibly  secure  my  favour ;  for 
as  high  as  the  heavens  are  above  the  earth,  so  far  am  I  superior  to  you 
in  mercy,  not  only  in  the  rigour  and  extent  of  my  requirements,  but  also  in 
compassion  for  the  guilty,  in  benevolent  consideration  even  for  the  Gentiles, 
and  in  the  constancy  and  firmness  of  my  purposes  when  formed." — In  his 
comment  upon  this  verse,  Yitringa  gives  his  definition  of  the  ways  of  God, 
which  has  so  frequently  been  cited,  or  repeated  without  citation  :  "  Yite 
Dei  sunt  vel  quibus  ipse  incedet,  vel  quibus  homines  incedere  vult."  For 
the  meaning  of  his  thoiujhts,  see  Ps.  xxxiii.  11,  and  Jer.  h.  29.  If  the  sense 
which  has  been  put  upon  the  sentence  be  correct,  it  means  far  more  than 
that  which  Hitzig  quotes  from  Homer  u7X  oclsl  ts  A/o;  K^iiGsm  v6o:  rji-ng 
at/dfUji/.  Knobcl  can  of  coiu'se  see  nothing  here  but  an  allusion  to  Cjtus 
and  Croesus. 

9.  For  {as)  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth,  so  are  my  toays  higher 
than  your  loays,  and  my  thoughts  than  your  thoughts.  This  is  an  illustra- 
tion by  comparison  of  the  negative  assertion  in  the  verse  preceding.     The 


832  ISAIAH  LV.  [Ver.  10-12. 

as  in  the  protasis  of  the  comparison  is  left  out,  as  in  Hosea  xi.  2,  P?. 
xlviii.  G,  Job  vii.  9,  Jcr.  iii.  20.  There  can  be  no  ground  therefore  fur  sup- 
posing, with  Seeker,  Houbigaiit,  and  Lowth,  that  it  has  dropped  out  of  the 
text  in  this  place.  The  full  expression  may  be  seen  in  chap.  x.  11. — The  IP 
might  here  be  taken  in  its  proper  sense  oifrom,  axoay  from,  as  the  reference 
is  in  fact  to  an  interval  of  space  ;  but  our  idiom  would  hardly  bear  the  strict 
translation,  and  comparison  is  certainly  implied,  if  not  expressed.  The  same 
comparison,  and  in  a  similar  application,  occurs  Ps.  ciii.  11. 

10,  11.   For  as  the  rain  cometh  dotvn,  and   the  snow  from   heaven,  and 
thither  retnrnetk  not,  hut   when   it  has  watered  the  earth  and  made  it  hear 
and  put  forth,  and  has  (jiven  seed  to  the  sower  and  bread  to  the  eater,  so  shall 
my  word  be,  which  fjoeth  out  of  my  mouth  ;  it  sJiall  not  return  unto  me  void 
(or  without  effect),  hut  irhen  it  has  done  that  which  I  desired,  and  success- 
fully dune  that  for  which  I  sent  it.     This  is  a  new  comparison,  suggested 
by  the  mention  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  in  the  preceding  verse.     The 
tenth   and  eleventh  form  a  single  sentence  of  unusual  length  in  Hebrew 
composition.     The  one  contains  the  comparison,  properly  so  called,  the 
other  makes  the  application.     The  futures  IT  and  2Y^'l  strictly  mean  will 
come  down,  will  return,  implying  that  the  same  series  of  events  might  bo 
expected  to  recur  ;  but  as  a  still  more  general  recurrence  is  implied,  the 
true  sense  is  conveyed  by  the  English  present. — The  construction  of  DX  '? 
is  precisely  the  same  as  in  Gen.  xxxii.  27,  Lev.  xxii.  6,  Ruth  ii.  16,  iii.  18, 
Amos  iii.  7  ;  in  all  which  cases  it  indicates  the  sine  qua  non,  the  condition 
without  which  the  event  expressed  by  the  future  cannot  take  place.     Hit- 
zig  asserts,  however,  that  the  Hebrews  knew  nothing  of  the  rain  going  back 
to  heaven  by  evaporation,  and  on  this  ground  will  not  let  the  words  have 
their  obvious  and  necessary  meaning.     The  impossibility  of  proving  any- 
thing from  such  expressions,  either  as  to  the  ignorance  or  knowledge  of  the 
laws  of  nature  which  the  ancients  possessed,  has  been  repeatedly  pointed 
out.     But  it  is  certainly  too  much  to  violate  analog)-  and  syntax  for  the 
purpose  of  involving  the  writer  in  a  real  or  apparent  blunder. — The  word 
of  ver.  11  is  not  merely  prophecy  or  promise,  much  less  the  command  of 
God  to  Cyrus  respecting  Israel  (Henderson),  least  of  all  the  Prophet  him- 
self as  an  incarnation  of  Jehovah's  word  (Hendewerk),  but  everything  that 
God  utters  either  in  the  way  of  prediction  or  command. — The  construction 
of  vnn'p'J'  X'N  is  essentially  the   same  as  in  2  Sam.  xi.  22.     That  ^\^ 
governs  two  accusatives  is  evident  from  such  places  as  1  Kings  xiv.  6. — 
The  English  Version  refers  IDJ  to  the  earth ;  but  this  construction  is  pre- 
cluded by  the  difference  of  gender.     The  effect  is  metaphorically  reprc- 
sented^as  produced  directly  by  the  rain  and  snow. — nvy'l  does  not  moan 
prosper  in,  but  make  to  prosper,  or  do  prosperously,  the  active  sense  being 
inseparable  from  the  Hiphil  form.     The  general  design  of  these  two  verses 
is  to  generate  and  foster  confidence  in  what  Jehovah  has  engaged  to  do. 

12.  For  with  jo;/  shall  ye  go  forth,  and  in  peace  shall  ye  be  led;  the 
mountains  and  the  hills  shall  break  out  before  you  into  a  shout,  and  all  the 
trees  of  the  field  shall  clap  the  hand.  Here,  as  in  many  other  places,  the 
idea  of  joyful  change  is  expressed  by  representing  all  nature  as  rejoicing. 
(See  chaps,  xxxv.  1,  2;  xliv.  23;  xlix.  13;  Hi.  9;  Ps.  xcviii.  8.)  The 
expression /70 /or/ /j  is  eagerly  seized  upon  by  some  interpreters  as  jnstif}'- 
ing  the  restriction  of  the  passage  to  the  restoration  from  the  Babylonish 
exile.  But  the  real  allusion  in  such  cases  is  to  the  deliverance  from  Egv-pt, 
which  is  constantly  referred  to  as  a  type  of  deliverance  in  general,  so  that 
every  signal  restoration  or  deliverance  is  represented  as  a  spiritual  exodus. 


Yer.  1.]  ISAIAH  LVI.  333 

Yitriuga,  with  mucli  more  probability,  applies  the  words  to  tlie  joy  of  the 
first  heathen  converts  when  they  heard  the  gospel  (Acts  xiii.  48 ;  1  Thes. 
i.  0).  The  rabbins,  upon  therr  part,  understand  the  passage  as  a  prophecy 
of  Israel's  deliverance  from  the  present  exile  and  dispersion.  All  the 
interpreters  since  Lowth  repeat  his  fine  quotation  from  Yirgil,  ipsi  Icetitia 
7110)1  les,  &c. 

13.  Instead  of  the  thorn  shall  come  up  the  ci/press,  and  instead  of  the  nettle 
shall  come  up  the  myrtle,  and  it  shall  be  to  Jehovah  for  a  name,  for  an  ever- 
las'.iwj  sign  that  shall  not  be  cut  off.  The  same  change  which  had  just 
been  represented  by  the  shouting  of  the  hills,  and  the  applause  of  the 
forests,  is  now  described  as  the  substitution  of  the  noblest  trees  for  the 
most  unprofitable  and  offensive  plants.  (Compare  chap.  xli.  19.)  An 
analogous  but  diliereut  figure  for  the  same  thing  is  the  opening  of  rivers 
in  the  desert.  (See  above,  chap.  xxxv.  6,  7 ;  xliii.  19,  20.)  For  the 
meaning  of  p^'^?-  and  t^'n?,  see  vol.  i.  pp.  178,  290.  The  name  n37P 
occurs  only  here.  Simonis  and  Ewald  understand  it  as  denoting  a  species 
of  mustard  plant.  Jerome  describes  it  as  a  worthless  and  offensive  weed. 
The  Seventy  have  xom^a.  The  modern  writers  are  disposed  to  acquiesce 
in  the  Yulgate  version,  urtica  or  nettle.  All  that  is  essential  to  the  writer's 
purpose  is,  that  it  be  understood  to  signify  a  mean  and  useless  plant,  and 
thus  to  form  a  contrast  with  the  myrtle,  as  the  thorn  does  with  the  cypress. 
• — Instead  of  it  shall  he,  the  modern  Germans  as  usual  prefer  the  indirect 
construction,  that  it  mai/  be,  which  is  neither  so  exact  nor  so  expressive  as 
the  strict  translation.  Knobel  makes  the  trees  the  subject  of  this  last  clause 
also ;  but  it  seems  more  natural  to  understand  it  as  referring  to  the  change 
itself,  described  in  this  and  the  preceding  verse.  Dropping  the  metaphor, 
the  Prophet  then  says,  in  direct  terms,  that  the  glorious  change  predicted 
shall  redound  to  the  glory  of  its  author.  It  shall  be  for  a  name,  i.  e.  it 
shall  serve  as  a  memorial,  which  is  then  described  in  other  words  as  a  sigii 
of  perpetuity  or  everlasting  token,  with  allusion,  as  Yitriuga  thinks,  to 
those  commemorative  obelisks  or  pillars  mentioned  elsewhere  (e.  //.  chap, 
xix.  19).  This  memorial  is  called  perpetual,  because  it  shall  not  he  cut  off, 
pass  away,  or  be  abolished. — It  will  here  be  sufficient  simply  to  state  the 
fact,  that  Knobel  understands  this  as  a  promise  that  the  homeward  journey 
of  the  exiles  should  be  comfortable  and  pleasant  {hequeni  und  angenehm). 


CHAPTEK   LVL 

While  the  church,  with  its  essential  institutions,  is  to  continue  unim- 
paired, the  old  distinctions,  national  and  personal,  are  to  be  done  away, 
and  the  Jewish  people  robbed  of  that  pre-eminence  of  which  its  rulers 
proved  themselves  unworthy. 

The  day  is  coming  when  the  righteousness  of  God  is  to  be  fully  revealed, 
without  the  veils  and  shackles  which  had  hitherto  confined  it,  ver.  1.  For 
this  great  change  the  best  preparation  is  fidelity  to  the  spirit  of  the  old 
economy,  ver.  2.  No  personal  or  national  distinctions  will  be  any  longer 
recognised,  ver.  3.  Connection  with  the  church  will  no  longer  be  a  matter 
of  hereditary  right,  vers.  4,  5.  The  church  shall  be  henceforth  co-exten- 
sive with  the  world,  vers.  G-8.  But  first,  the  carnal  Israel  must  be  aban- 
doned to  its  enemies,  ver.  9.  Its  rulers  are  neither  able  nor  worthy  to 
deliver  the  people  or  themselves,  vers.  10-12. 

1.   Jims  saith  Jehovah,   Keep  ye  judgment  (or  justice)  and  do  rigid- 


334  JSAIAU  Lf'L  [Veb.  2. 

eousnfss ;  for  tiear  (is)  my  salvation  to  come,  and  my  riyhleousness  to  be 
revealed-.  The  Jews  refer  this  passage  to  their  present  dispersion,  and 
understand  it  as  declaring  the  conditions  of  their  restoration.  Vitringa 
applies  it  to  the  beginning  of  the  new  dispensation  ;  Piscafor  to  the  new 
dispensation  generally  ;  the  modern  Genuans  to  the  end  of  the  Babvlonish 
exile.  These  difl'erent  classes  of  interpreters  of  course  expound  particulars 
in  accordance  with  their  general  hypothesis,  but  none  of  them  without 
undue  restriction  of  that  which  in  itself  requires,  or  at  least  admits  a  wider 
application.  On  the  principle  heretofore  assumed  as  the  basis  of  our  ex- 
position, we  can  only  regard  it  as  a  statement  of  the  general  laws  which 
govern  the  divine  dispensation  towards  the  chosen  people,  and  the  world  at 
large.  The  reference  is  not  merely  to  the  ancient  Israel,  much  less  to  the 
Jews  of  the  captivity,  still  less  to  the  Christian  Church  distinctively  consi- 
dered, least  of  all  to  the  Christian  Church  of  any  one  period.  The  doctrine 
of  the  passage  is  simply  this,  that  they  who  enjoy  extraordinary  privileges, 
or  expect  extraordinary  favours,  are  under  corresponding  obligations  to  do 
the  will  of  God  ;  and  moreover,  that  the  nearer  the  manifestation  of  God's 
mercy,  whether  in  time  or  in  eternity,  the  louder  the  call  to  righteousness 
of  life.  These  truths  are  of  no  restricted  application,  but  may  be  applied 
wherever  the  relation  of  a  church  or  chosen  people  can  bo  recognised. 
Without  attempting  to  refute  the  various  opinions  founded  on  the  false 
hypothesis  of  a  local  or  temporal  limitation,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  point 
out  the  absurdities  attending  that  wliich  in  our  day  has  the  greatest  vogue, 
viz.  the  notion  that  the  passage  relates  merely  to  the  Babylonish  exile. 
Thus  Maurer  understands  the  Prophet  as  advising  his  contemporaries  to 
act  in  a  manner  worthy  of  their  approaching  liberation,  and  Gesenius  sup- 
poses him  to  take  this  opportunity  of  combating  the  Jewish  prejudice  against 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  Why  this  error  needed  to  be  conti'overted  at 
this  precise  juncture,  he  omits  to  explain.  But  this  is  not  the  worst  thing 
in  Gesenius's  interpretation  of  the  place  before  us.  After  saying  that  a 
proselytising  spirit  is  inseparable  from  the  belief  in  one  exclusive  way  of 
salvation,  and  particularly  pardonable  in  the  Jewish  exiles,  suiTouuded  as 
they  were  by  idolaters,  he  goes  on  to  represent  the  liberal  spirit  of  this 
passage  as  directly  at  variance  with  the  law  of  Jloses,  particularly  as  con- 
tained in  Deut.  xxiii.  2-8,  which  ho  saj-s  is  virtually  here  repealed.  This 
shallow  and  erroneous  view  of  the  relation  which  subsists  between  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,  will  correct  itself  as  we  proceed  with  the  detailed 
interjiretation.  l3Sv'P  seems  here  to  be  equivalent  to  >^'^'^*^,  with  which  it 
is  connected  as  a  parallel  in  chap.  xlii.  4,  li.  4. 

2.  ll<i}>p]l  the  vutn  [that)  shall  do  this,  and  the  son  of  man  thai  .shall  hold 
it/ast,  ki'qtuKj  the  Sabbath  from  jiwfaniutf  it,  and  hrejiinfj  his  hand  from  do- 
imj  all  evil.  The  pronoun  this  seems  to  refer  to  what  follows,  as  in  Ps. 
vii.  4,  and  Deut.  xxxii.  29.  .Son  of  man  is  simply  an  equivalent  expression 
to  the  man  of  the  other  clause.  The  last  clause  is  remarkable,  and  has 
occasioned  much  dispute  among  interpreters,  on  account  of  its  combining 
a  ]K)sitive  and  negative  description  of  the  character  required,  the  last  of 
which  is  very  general,  and  the  first  no  less  specilic.  A  great  variety  of 
reasons  have  been  given  for  the  special  mention  of  the  Sabbath  here.  It 
has  especially  perplexed  those  writers  who  regard  the  Sabbath  as  a  tem- 
porary ceremonial  institution.  Some  of  these  endeavour  to  evade  the 
difficulty,  by  supposing  that  the  Sabbath  here  meant  is  a  mystical  or 
spiritual  Sabbatism,  a  repose  from  suffering,  sin,  or  ceremonial  impositions. 
But  how  could  such  a  Sabbath  bo  observed,  or  how  could  they  be  called 


Ver.  3-5.]  ISAIAH  LYI.  335 

upon  to  hcep  it,  as  a  condition  of  the  divine  favour  ?  Some  suppose  the 
Sabbath  to  be  here  put  for  the  whole  Mosaic  system  of  rehfious  services, 
as  being  the  most  ancient,  and,  in  some  sort,  the  foundation  of  the  rest. 
According  to  Gcsenius,  it  is  specified  because  it  was  the  only  part  of  the 
Mosaic  institutions  which  could  be  perpetuated  through  the  exile,  that 
which  was  merely  ceremonial  and  restricted  to  the  temple  being  necessarily 
suspended.  Rosenmiiller  thinks  that  it  is  here  referred  to,  as  a  public 
national  profession  of  the  worship  of  one  God.  The  true  explanation  is 
afforded  by  a  reference  to  the  primary  and  secondary  ends  of  the  Sabbatical 
institution,  and  the  belief  involved  in  its  observance.  In  the  first  place, 
it  implied  a  recognition  of  Jehovah  as  the  omnipotent  Creator  of  the  uni- 
verse (Exod.  XX.  11,  xxxi.  17)  ;  in  the  next  place,  as  the  sanctifier  of  his 
people,  not  in  the  technical  or  theological  sense,  but  as  denoting  him  by  whom 
they  had  been  set  apart  as  a  peculiar  people  (Exod.  xxxi.  13 ;  Ezck.  xx. 
12) ;  in  the  next  place,  as  the  Saviour  of  this  chosen  people  from  the 
bondage  of  Egypt  (Deut.  v.  15).  Of  these  great  truths  the  Sabbath  was 
a  weekly  remembrancer,  and  its  observance  by  the  people  a  perpetual  re- 
cognition and  profession,  besides  the  practical  advantages  accruing  to  the 
maintenance  of  a  religious  spirit  by  the  weekly  recurrence  of  a  day  of 
rest;  advantages  which  no  one  more  distinctly  acknowledges,  or  states 
more  strongly,  than  Gesenius.  Holding  fast  is  a  common  idiomatic  ex- 
pression for  consistent  perseverance  in  a  certain  course.  It  occurs  not 
unfrequently  in  the  New  Testament.  (Heb.  iv.  4,  vi.  18  ;  Rev.  ii.  25,  iii. 
11).  The  suffix  in  1^3  refers  to  HNt,  and  like  it  has  respect  to  the  whole 
course  of  conduct  afterwards  described.  Gesenius  refers  to  chap.  i.  13  as 
a  rejection  of  the  Sabbath,  and  in  this  detects  a  want  of  agreement  be- 
tween the  genuine  and  spurious  Isaiah  :  a  conclusion  resting  whollj'  on  a 
false  view  of  that  passage,  for  the  true  sense  of  which  see  under  chap, 
i.  11-15,  vol.  i.  p.  80,  &c. 

3.  And  let  not  the  foreigner  say,  who  has  joined  himself  unto  Jehovah, 
saying,  Jehovah  will  separate  me  luhoUy  from  his  people  ;  and  let  not  the 
eunuch  say,  Lo,  I  am  a  dry  tree.  The  essential  meaning  of  this  verse  is, 
that  all  external  disabilities  shall  be  abolished,  whether  personal  or  national. 
To  express  the  latter  he  makes  use  of  the  phrase  "133lI"|3,  which  strictly 
means  not  the  son  of  the  stranger,  as  the  common  version  has  it,  but  the 
^on  of  strangeness,  or  of  a  strange  country ;  "13.3  corresponding  to  the 
lermau  Fremde,  which  has  no  equivalent  in  Enghsh.     The  whole  class 

of  personal  disqualifications  is  represented  by  the  case  of  the  eunuch,  in 
reference  to  Deut.  xxiii.  1,  and  as  Calvin  thinks  to  the'  promise  in  Gen. 
XV.  5,  and  xxii.  17,  from  which  that  class  of  persons  was  excluded.  Hens- 
ler's  idea  that  D^"iD  here  means  an  officer  or  courtier,  is  precluded  by  the 
addition  of  the  words,  /  am  a  dry  tree,  a  proverbial  description  of  child- 
lessness said  to  be  still  current  in  the  East.  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
the  eunuch  may  be  mentioned,  simply  because  it  stands  at  the  beginning 
of  the  list  of  prohibitions  in  the  law.  In  either  case,  the  expression  is 
generic,  or  representative  of  more  particulars  than  it  expresses.  Knobel's 
restriction  of  the  first  clause  to  the  Canaauites,  who  mingled  with  the  Jews 
in  their  captivity,  or  occupied  their  places  in  their  absence,  is  entirely 
gi'atuitous.  The  meaning  is,  that  all  restrictions,  even  such  as  still 
aSected  proselytes,  should  be  abolished. 

4,  5.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah  to  (or,  as  to)  the  eunuchs  uho  shall  keep 
my  Sabbaths,  and  shall  choose  ivhat  1  delight  in,  and  take  fast  hold  of  my 
covenant,  I  will  give  to  them  in  my  house  and  within  my  ivalls  a  place  and 


8CG  ISAIAH  LV I.  [Ykk.  G,  7. 

name  better  than  sous  and  than  daughters  ;  an  everlasling  name  irill  I  give  to 
him,  uliich  shall  vut  be  cut  off.  According  to  Joseph  Kirachi,  the  plural 
Sabbutha  is  intended  to  include  the  Sabbatical  3"tar,  and  that  of  jubilee.  If 
any  distinction  was  intended,  it  was  probably  that  between  the  wider  and 
narrower  meaninj,'  of  ihe  tenn  Sabbaths,  i.e.  the  Sabbath  properly  so  called, 
and  the  other  institutions  of  religion  with  which  it  is  connected. — What  it 
is  that  God  delights  in,  may  be  learned  from  chap.  Ixvi.  4,  Jer.  ix.  24, 
Hos.  vi.  G.  By  hoKling  fast  my  covenant  is  meant  adhering  to  his  compact 
with  me,  which  includes  obedience  to  the  precepts  and  faith  in  the  pro- 
mises. The  1  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  5  introduces  the  apodosis,  and  gives 
the  verb  a  future  meaning. — By  viy  walls  we  are  not  to  understand,  with 
Jerome,  those  of  Jerusalem,  nor,  with  the  modern  writers,  those  of  the 
temple,  but  in  a  more  ideal  sense,  the  walls  of  God's  house  or  dwelling, 
which  had  just  been  mentioned.  The  promise  is  not  merely  one  of  free 
access  to  the  material  sanctuary,  but  of  a  home  in  the  household  or  family 
of  God,  an  image  of  perpetual  occurrence  in  the  Psalms  of  David.  (See 
especially  Psalms  xv.  xxiii.  and  xxiv.  as  expounded  by  Hengstcnberg.) — 
The  use  of  the  word  "l)  in  this  connection  is  obsc\ire,  although  the  essential 
meaning  is  determined  by  the  context.  Umbreit  follows  Aquila,  Sym- 
machus,  and  Thcodotion,  in  adhering  to  the  usual  sense  hand,  which  he  seems 
to  think  is  mentioned  as  the  natural  instrument  of  seizure,  and  metaphori- 
cally applicable  to  the  thing  seized,  for  example,  to  a  share  or  portion. 
Gescuius  recognises  this  use  of  the  plural  in  a  few  places,  but  appears  to 
derive  it  from  the  primary  idea  of  a  handful.  In  the  case  before  us  he  ex- 
plains the  word  as  meaning  a  memorial  or  monument,  which  sense  it  seems 
to  have  in  2  Sam.  xviii.  18,  perhaps  with  reference,  as  Gesenius  supposes, 
to  the  uplifted  hand  and  arm  found  on  many  ancient  cippi  or  sepulchral 
columns.  But  as  the  antiquity  and  universality  of  this  practice  are  uncer- 
tain, and  as  tin;  meaning ^>/ace  is  admissible  in  2  Sam,  xviii.  18,  as  in  many 
other  cases,  it  appears  to  be  entitled  to  the  preference. — Bdter  than  sons 
and  daughters  may  either  mean  better  than  the  comfort  immediately  derived 
from  children  (as  in  liuth  iv.  15),  or  better  than  the  perpetuation  of  the 
name  by  hereditary  succession.  Most  interpreters  prefer  the  hitter  sense, 
but  both  may  be  included.  A  beautiful  coincidence  and  partial  fulfilment 
of  the  promise  is  pointed  out  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  the  case  of  the  Ethi- 
opian eunuch,  whose  conversion  is  recorded  in  the  eighth  of  Acts,  and 
whose  memory  is  far  more  honoured  in  the  church  than  it  could  have  been 
by  a  long  line  of  illustrious  descendants. 

G,  7.  A)id  {as  io)  ihv  foreignirs  joining  themselves  to  Jehovah  to  serve  him 
and  to  love  the  name  of  Jehovah,  to  be  to  him  for  servants,  every  one  keeping 
the  Sabbath  from  profaning  it,  and  holding  fast  my  eovenant,  I  will  bring 
them  to  my  mount  of  holiness,  and  make  them  joyful  in  my  house  of  prayer, 
their  ojferings  and  their  sacrifices  [shall  he]  to  acceptance  on  my  altar ;  for 
my  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations.  Aben  Ezra  jioints 
out  as  a  rhetorical  peculiarity  in  the  structure  of  this  passage,  that  the 
writer,  after  mentioning  the  foreigners  and  eunuchs  in  ver.  8,  afterwards 
recurs  to  them  in  an  inverted  order.  As  an  analogous  example,  he  refers 
to  Josh.  xxiv.  81. — The  verb  riX',  although  strictly  a  generic  term,  is 
Bpecially  appropriated  to  the  official  service  of  the  ])riests  and  Levites. 
Some  interpreters  accordingly  suppose  it  to  be  here  said  that  the  heathen 
shall  partake  of  the  sacerdotal  honours  elsewhere  promised  to  the  church. 
(See  chap.  Ixi.  G,  Exod.  xix.  G,  1  Peter  ii.  5,  9,  Kev.  i.  G.) — To  love  the 
name  of  Jehovah,  is  to  love  his  attributes  as  manifested  in  his  word  and 


Ver.  8,  9.]  ISAIAH  LVL  337 

vorks.     (Compare  chaps.  Ix.  9,  Ixvi.  5.)— ''ri?S);i  n-a  does  not  mean  the 
lOuse  of  my  prayer,  i.e.  the  house  where  prayer  is  made  to  me,  but  my 
ouse  of  prayer,  as  ''^ll^  ""!•  means  my  hill  of  holiness,  or  holy  hill.     Knobel 
apposes  an  allusion  to  the  residence  of  the  Nethinim  on  Ophel.     (Neh. 
■,'i.  2G,  xi.  21.) — Shall  he  called,  as  in  many  other  cases,  implies  that  it 
I  Uall  be  so.     Our  Saviour  quotes  a  part  of  the  last  clause,  not  in  reference 
its  main  sense,  but  to  what  is  incidentally  mentioned,  viz.,  its  being 
called  a  house  of  prayer.     This  part  of  the  sentence  was  applicable  to  the 
material  temple  while  it  lasted  ;  but  the  whole  prediction  could  be  verified 
only  after  its  destruction,  when  the  house  of  God  even  upon  earth  ceased 
to  be  a  limited  locality,  and  became  coextensive  with  the  church  in  its  en- 
largement and  ditiusion.     The  form  of  expression  is  derived,  however,  from 
the  ceremonies  of  the  old  economy,  and  worship  is  described  by  names 
familiar  to  the  writer  and  his  original  readers.     (Compare  Hos.  xiv.   3, 
Heb.  xiii.  13,  John  iv.  21-23.)     The  general  promise  is  the  same  as  that 
in  Mai.  i.  11,  and  is  so  far  from  being  inconsistent  with  the  principles  on 
which  the  old  economy  was  founded,  that  it  simply  carries  out  its  original 
design  as  settled  and  announced  from  the  beginning. 

8.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  the  gatherer  of  the  outcasts  of  Israel,  Still 
(more)  will  I  gather  upon  him  in  addition  to  his  gathered.  This  may  either 
mean,  I  will  go  on  to  gather  still  more  of  his  outcasts,  or,  besides  his  out- 
casts I  will  gather  others.  There  is  less  difference  between  the  two  inter- 
pretations than  at  first  sight  there  might  seem  to  be.  In  either  case,  the 
words  are  applicable  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  On  the  second  sup- 
position, which  is  commonly  adopted,  even  by  the  Je^vish  wTiters,  this  is 

Ithe  direct  and  proper  meaning  of  the  words.  But  even  on  the  other,  they 
it  ..mount  to  the  same  thing,  if  we  only  give  to  Israel  its  true  sense,  as  denot- 
1  mg  not  the  Jewish  nation  as  such,  but  the  chosen  people  or  the  church  of 
God,  to  which  the  elect  heathen  as  really  belong  as  the  elect  Jews,  a,nd  are 
therefore  just  as  much  entitled  to  be  called  outcasts  of  Israel .  It  is  true 
that  our  Saviour  uses  a  similar  expression  (lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel) 
in  a  restricted  application  to  the  Israelites  properly  so  called  ;  but  it  is  in 
a  connection  which  brings  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  into  evident  antithesis, 
and  therefore  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  sense  in  which  the  name  Israel  is 
to  be  understood.  V?3|  may  either  mean  simply  to  him  or  upon  him,  im- 
plying vast  accumulation. 

9.  All  )/e  beasts  of  the  field,  come  to  devour,  all  ye  leasts  in  the  forest  / 
The  structure  of  this  verse  is  somewhat  unusual,  consisting  of  two  parallel 
members,  with  a  third,  equally  related  to  both,  interposed  between  them. 
It  is  an  invitation  to  the  enemies  of  Israel  to  destroy  it.  The  people  being 
represented  in  the  following  verses  as  a  flock,  their  destroyers  are  natu- 
rally represented  here  as  wild  beasts.  Hitzig  and  Ivnobel  understand  the 
invitation  as  ironical,  or  as  a  mere  poetical  description  of  the  defenceless 
state  in  which  Israel  was  left  through  the  neglect  of  its  natural  protectors. 
It  is  more  natural,  however,  to  explain  it  as  an  indirect  prediction  of  an 
actual  event,  clothed  in  Isaiah's  favourite  form  of  an  apostrophe.  Yitringa's 
limitation  of  the  prophecy  to  the  subversion  of  the  Roman  empire  by  the 
barbarians,  is  as  arbitraiy  as  its  application  in  the  Targum  and  by  Kimchi, 
to  Gog  and  Magog.  We  have  here  simply  one  of  those  alternations  and 
transitions  which  arc  not  only  frequent  in  this  book,  but  one  of  its  charac- 
teristics, and  indeed  essential  to  the  writer"s  purpose  of  exhibiting  God's 
dealing  with  his  church,  both  in  wrath  and  mercy.     From  the  foregoing 

VOL.  II.  Y 


888  ISAIAH  LVI.  [Veb.  10. 

promises  of  growth,  he  now  reverts  to  intervening  judgments,  and  their 
causes.     There  is  no  ground,  therefore,  for  Luzzatto's  assertion,  that  the 
next  seventeen  verses  are  entirely  unconnected  with  what  goes  before,  and 
must  therefore  be  considered  an  interpohition.     Ewald,  on  the  other  hand, 
alleges  that  from  this  verse  to  the  middle  of  chap.  Ivii.  11  is  an  extract  from 
an  older  vvTitcr,  inserted  here  in  order  to  have  something  against  idolatry, 
and  because  the  author  of  the  book  could  not  hope  to  produce  anything 
better !     As  a  further  illustration  of  the  value  of  such  critical  decisions,  I 
may  add  that  Hendewerk  separates  chaps.  Iv.,  hn.,  and  Ivii.  from  the  fore- 
going and  following  context,  as  a  distinct  prophecy  !     Besides  the  usual  and 
natural  interpretation  of  the  verse  before  us  as  a  threatening,  may  be  men- 
tioned that  of  Cyril  and  Jerome,  who  regard  it  as  an  invitation  to  all  sorts 
of  men  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper;  while  Clericus  explains  it  as  a  like 
invitation  to  the  Gentiles  to  frequent  the  temple  and  partake  of  the  sacri- 
ficial feasts.     The  same  sense  was  put  upon  the  words  by  Rosenmiiller  in 
his  first  edition  ;  but  he  afterwards  adopted  a  diflferent  grammatical  con- 
Btruction  of  the  sentence,  being  the  one  proposed  by  Aben  Ezra,  who 
explains  the  beasts  of  the  forest  as  the  object  of  the  verb  devour,  and  under- 
stands the  sentence  as  an  in^^tation  to  the  heathen  to  destroy  the  wicked 
Jews.     The  same  construction  is  received  by  Jarchi  and  Abarbenel,  but 
with  a  vers'  different  result,  as  they  suppose  the  invitation  to  be  given  to 
the  proselytes  to  destroy  the  enemies  of  Israel.     On  the  same  grammatical 
foundation  Cocceius  erects  his  explanation  of  the  verse  as  a  call  to  the  bar- 
barians to  destroy  the  cornipt  Christians,  while  SchmiJius  regards  it  as  ar 
exhortation  to  the  church  to   swallow  up   the   Gentiles  by  receiving  them 
into  her  bosom  !     All  the  modem  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  the  las 
clause  as  well  as  the  first  is  a  description  of  the  object  of  address,  and  thi 
the  thing  to  be  devoured  must  be  supplied  from  the  following  verses,     Wita 
the  metaphors  of  this  verse  compare  Exod.  xxiii.  29 ;  Ezek.  xxxiv,  5-8  ; 
Jer.  xii.  9,  vii.  83, 1.  17.     Beasts  of  the  field  and  of  the  forest,  are  paralU'l 
expressions.     Home  interpreters  mnke  the  one  a  stronger  expression  than 
the  other ;  but  in  deciding  which  it  is,  they  directly  contradict  each  other. 
Vitringa's  notion  that  the  one  may  mean  the  Saracens,  the  other  the  Huns, 
Turks,  and  Tartars,  is  to  use  his  own  words  with  respect  to  Cyril's  exposi- 
tion of  the  verse,  "  non  commendabilis  hac  ff;tate  ecclesiaj." 

10.  IHk  u-atehmen  {are)  blind  all  of  them,  they  hare  not  known  (or  do  not 
hiow),  all  of  them  {are)  dumb  doqs,  they  cannot  bark,  drenminy,  lying  down, 
lorinij  to  shnnlier.  The  pronoun  his  refers  to  Israel,  as  in  ver.  8,  and  thus 
proves  clearly  that  no  new  discourse  begins  either  with  ver.  9  or  with  that 
before  us,  where  the  large  J{  of  the  Masoretic  text,  and  the  space  before  the 
verse  in  most  manuscripts,  seem  to  indicate  a  change  of  subject.  But,  as 
Gesenius  correctly  says,  the  writer  merely  pauses  to  take  broath,  and  then 
resumes  the  thread  of  his  discourse.  Many  give  do  not  hiou-  the  absolute 
sense  of  knowing  nothing  or  being  without  knowledge  ;  but  in  all  such  cases 
it  seems  better  to  connect  it  with  an  object  understood.  We  may  here 
supply  their  duty,  or  the  state  of  the  flock,  or  the  danger  to  which  it  is 
exposed.  The  ditVerencc  between  the  past  and  present  form  is  immaterial 
hero  ;  because  both  are  really  included,  the  condition  described  being  one 
of  ancient  date,  but  still  continued.  The  dogs  particularly  meant  are 
shepherds'  dogs  (Job  xxx.  1),  whose  task  it  was  to  watch  the  flock,  and  by 
their  barking  give  notice  of  apj^roaching  danger,  lint  these  are  dumb  dogs 
which  cannot  even  bark,  and  therefore  wholly  useless.  They  are  also 
negligent  and  lazy.     Far  from  averting  peril  or  announcing  it,  they  do  not 


Yer.  11,  12.]  ISAIAH  LVI.  •  889 

see  it.  What  is  before  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a  bhnd  watchman,  is 
here  expressed  by  that  of  a  shepherd's  dog  asleep.  D'th  is  confounded  by 
the  Vulgate,  Symmachus,  and  Saadias,  with  C^n  which  might  either  be  a 
participle  [seeiiKj)  or  a  noun  {seers),  corresponding  to  ualchmcn  in  the  first 
clause.  The  common  text  is  now  veiy  generally  regarded  as  correct,  and 
explained  by  the  Arabic  analogy  to  signify  dreaming,  or  talking  in  sleep,  or 
raving  either  from  disease  or  sleep.  Some  suppose  a  particular  allusion  to 
the  murmuring  or  growling  of  a  dog  in  its  dreams.  Some  writers  make  tho 
watchmen  of  this  verse  denote  the  prophets,  as  in  chap.  Hi.  8;  Jer.  vi.  17; 
Ezek.  iii.  17,  xxxiii.  7.  But  Gesenius  more  coiTectly  understands  it  as  a 
figure  for  the  rulers  of  the  people  generally,  not  excluding  even  the  false 
prophets.  The  figurative  title  is  expressive  of  that  watchfulness  so 
frequently  described  in  the  New  Testament  as  an  essential  attribute  of 
spiritual  guides.     (Compare  also  Mat.  xv.  4.) 

11.  And  the  do(/s  are  greedy,  they  know  not  satiety,  and  they,  the  shep- 
herds (or  the  shepherds  themselves),  know  not  how  to  distinguish  (or  act 
wisely) ;  all  of  them  to  their  own  way  are  turned,  {every)  man  to  his  own  gain 
from  his  own  quarter  (or  loithout  exception).  A  new  tm'n  is  now  given  to 
the  figures  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  dogs,  though  indolent,  are  greedy. 
Several  of  the  ancient  versions  confound  ^'P.^  ''ity  with  D^?3  VW,  hard-faced, 
and  translate  it  i7n2)udent.  The  true  sense  of  the  former  phrase  is  strong 
of  appetite,  i.  e.  voracious. — The  pronoun  H^H  is  emphatic,  and  may  either 
mean  that  these  same  dogs  are  at  the  same  time  shepherds,  thus  aftbrding 
a  transition  to  a  diflerent  though  kindi'ed  image,  or  it  may  be  intended  to 
distinguish  between  two  kinds  of  rulers ;  as  if  he  had  said,  while  the  dogs 
are  thus  indolent  and  greedy,  they  (the  shepherds)  are  incompetent ;  or, 
while  the  shepherds'  dogs  are  such,  the  shepherds  themselves  know  not  how 
to  distinguish.  The  latter  is  probably  the  true  construction  ;  for  although 
the  same  class  of  persons  may  be  successively  compared  to  shepherds"  dogs 
and  shepherds,  it  cannot  even  by  a  figure  of  speech  be  naturally  said  that 
the  dogs  themselves  are  shepherds.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  dogs  and  shepherds  as  denoting  civil  and  religious 
rulers,  since  both  comparisons  are  equally  appropriate  to  rulers  in  general. 
Etymologically,  T^C  may  be  understood  to  signify  the  act  of  discernment 
or  discrimination.  Usage  would  seem  to  require  that  of  being  wise  or 
prudent;  but  its  Hiphil  form,  and  its  being  preceded  by  the  verb  to  know, 
are  in  favour  of  explaining  it  to  mean  wise  conduct,  with  particular  refer- 
ence in  this  case  to  official  obligation.  Their  being  all  turned  to  their  own 
way  is  expressive  of  diversity,  and  also  of  selfishness  in  each  individual. 
The  latter  sense  is  then  expressed  more  fully  by  the  addition  of  ^yV?<,  to 
or  for  his  own  gain  or  profit.  That  voluptuous  as  well  as  avaricious  indul- 
gences are  here  referred  to,  is  apparent  from  what  follows  in  the  next 
verse. —  The  last  word  literally  means //-om  his  end  or  his  extremity,  to  which 
the  older  writers  gave  the  sense  of  his  quarter  or  direction,  con-esponding 
to  his  oion  icay ;  and  Henderson  says  that  it  expresses  the  extreme  lengths 
to  which  they  went  in  their  efibrts  to  accumulate  gain.  Most  of  the  modem 
writers  have  adopted  the  opinion  of  De  Dieu,  that  -inViJp  means  ad  unum 
omnes,  all  without  exception,  i.  e.  all  within  a  given  space  or  number,  from 
its  very  end  or  remotest  limit.  (Compare  Gen.  xix.  4  ;  Jer.  li.  31  ;  Ezek. 
XXV.  9.) 

12.  Come  ye,  I  will  fetch  wine,  and  we  iiill  intoxicate  ourselves  with  strong 
dri)d:,  and  like  to-day  shall  be  to-morrow,  great,  abundantly,  exceedingly. 
The  description  of  the  revellers  is  verified  by  quoting  their  own  words,  as 


340  ISJIAJl  LVII.  ,Veb.  1. 

in  chap.  xxii.  13.  The  hinguape  is  that  of  one  inviting  others  to  join  in  a 
debauch ;  hence  the  alternation  of  the  einpular  anil  plural.  ^<3D  is  not 
merely  to  drink,  nor  even  to  be  filled,  but  to  be  drunk.  The  futures  mij,'ht 
bo  rendered  let  me  fetch  and  let  us  drink,  without  cither  injuring  or  bett*.'r- 
ing  the  sense.  The  last  clause  professes  or  expresses  a  determination  to 
prolong  the  revel  till  the  morrow.  The  accents  connect  CV  with  "ino  in 
the  sense  of  dies  c)a.stinn.i.  Another  possible  construction  is  to  make  the 
pronoun  HT.  agree  with  Di'  although  preceding  it ;  a  combination  less 
incredible  in  this  case,  because  ^il|  in  the  following  member  is  supposed 
by  some  to  agree  with  ID'  as  a  noun,  in  which  case  the  whole  phrase 
■would  mean  exceeding  great  abundance.  Most  interpreters,  however,  make 
iri'.  and  "li<P  both  adverbs,  although  both  originally  nouns,  and  construe 
great  with  day,  a  great  day  being  naturally  applicable  to  a  day  remarkable 
for  anything,  as  in  the  case  before  us  for  its  revelry;  just  as  we  say  in 
colloquial  English,  a  high  time,  or  a  rare  time,  for  a  time  of  great  enjoy- 
ment. 


CHAPTER    LYII. 

Thk  righteous  who  died  during  the  old  economy  were  taken  away  from 
the  evil  to  come,  vers.  1,  2.  The  wicked  who  despised  them  were  them- 
selves proper  objects  of  contempt,  vers.  3,  4,  Their  idolatr}'  is  first  de- 
scribed in  literal  terms,  vers.  .5,  G.  It  is  then  represented  as  a  spiritual 
adultery,  vers.  7-9.  Their  obstinate  persistency  in  sin  is  represented  as 
the  cause  of  their  hopeless  and  remediless  destruction,  vers.  10-13.  A 
way  is  prepared  for  spiritual  Israel  to  come  out  from  among  them,  ver.  14. 
The  hopes  of  true  believers  shall  not  be  deferred  for  ever,  vers.  15,  10. 
Even  these  must  be  chastened  for  their  sins,  ver.  17.  But  there  is  favour 
in  reserve  for  all  true  penitents,  without  regard  to  national  distinctions, 
vers.  18,  19.  To  the  incorrigible  sinner,  on  the  other  hand,  peace  is  im- 
possible, vers.  20,  21. 

1.  The  righteous  perisheth,  and  there  is  no  man  laying  (it)  to  heart,  and 
men  of  mercy  are  taken  away,  with  none  considering  (or  perceiving)  that 
from  the  pre-sc7ice  of  evil  the  righteous  js  taken  atvay.  Henderson  says  that 
whether  Hezekiah  or  Josiali  be  meant  by  the  righteous,  cannot  be  deter- 
mined, nor  indeed  whether  any  particular  individual  be  int«'nded.  This 
doubt  may  not  appear  so  utterly  insoluble  when  we  consider  that  there  is 
DO  further  reference  to  either  of  the  persons  mentioned,  nor  anything  like 
an  individual  description  in  the  text  or  context ;  that  P*'!'V''!'  is  used  generi- 
cally  for  a  whole  class  elsewhere  {e.g.  Eocles.  iii.  17,  llzek.  xviii.  20, 
Ps.  xxxvii.  12)  ;  and  that  the  parallel  expression  here  is  plural.  This  last 
consideration,  it  is  true,  would  have  no  weight  against  Tertullian  and 
Cyprian,  who  exj)lain  the  righteous  to  be  Christ,  and  inru  of  mercy  his 
apostles  ;  but  even  \'itringa  describes  this  hypothesis  as  nulla  sjKcic  pro- 
babilem,  and  therefore  needing  no  refutation.  The  terms  of  this  verse  aro 
specitically  applicable  neither  to  violent  nor  natural  death  as  such  consi- 
dered, but  aro  appropriate  to  either.  Even  Kimchi  points  out  that  the 
righteous  is  not  hero  said  to  perish,  either  in  the  sense  of  ceasing  to  exist, 
or  in  that  of  ceasing  to  be  happy,  but  in  that  of  being  lost  to  the  world 
and  to  society.  Laying  to  heart  is  not  merely  feeling  or  ajipreciatiug.  but 
observing  and  perceiving. — Men  of  mercy  is  another  description  of  the 
righteous,  so  called  as  the  objects  of  Qod's  mercy,  and  as  being  mercifal 


Ver.  2,  3.] 


ISAIAH  LVII.  311 


themselves.     (See  Mat.  v.  7.)-Tho  verb  ^IPX  is  doubly  appropnate,  first 
in  its  Reneral  though  secoudary  sense   of  taking  away,  and  then   in   its 
primary  specific  sense  of  gathering,  i.  e.  gathering  to  one  s  fathers  or  one  s 
people  ;  an  expression  frequently  applied  in  the  Old  lestament  to  death 
ind  especially  lo  that  of  godly  men.     (See  Gen.  xhx    29,  Judges  n.  10^ 
The  verb  is  used  absolutely  in  this  sense  by  Moses  (^um    xx.  ^I^)-—  ?^? 
means  strictly  in  default  or  in  the  absence  of  (Prov.  viu.  21   xxyi.  ZU).— 
Most  interpi-eters  give  ^3  the  sense  of  that,  and  understand  the  las    clause 
as  stating  vvhat  it  is  that  uo  one  lays  to  heart  or  understands,  viz.  the  fact 
that  the  righteous  is  taken  away,  &c.     Some,  however,  translate    ?  Jor, 
and  make  the  last  clause  a  mere  reiteration  of  the  fact  twice  stated  in  the 
first.     Upon  this  point  Hitzig's  version  and  his  comment  are  directly  con- 
tradictory, the  former  having  for  {denn)  and  the  latter  saying  expressly, 
<''3  here  means  not  for  {denn),  but  that  (dass)  ;  their  death  i«  ol^served 
but  not  its  cause."     There  is  also  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  3?P,  whicli 
some  suppose  to  mean  because  of  others  before  (in  reference  to  time),  and 
others  from  the  face  or  presence  of     So  too  the  evil  is  by  some  under- 
stood in  a  physical  sense,  viz.  that  of  misery  or  suffermg,  by  others  in  a 
moral  sense,  viz.  that  of  guilt  or  sin.     Those  who  adopt  the  latter  under- 
stand the  clause  to  mean,  that  the  death  of  the  righteous  is  occasioned  by 
the  sins  of  the  people.     But  why  may  not  this  be  asserted  of  the  dca  li  ot 
the  sinner  likewise  ?     On  the  other  hypothesis,  the  sense  is  either  that  the 
righteous  is  destroyed  by  his  calamities,  or  that  he  is  removed  before  tliey 
come  upon  the  people.     To  the  latter  it  is  objected  by  Maurer  that  the 
subsequent  context  represents  great  prosperity  as  in  reserve  tor  the  people. 
But  this  objection  presupposes  an  erroneous  limitation  of  the  passage  to 
the  period  of  the  exile.  ,    . 

2.  He  shall  go  in  peace  (or  enter  into  peace)  ;  they  shall  rest  upon  their 
beds-ioalking  straight  before  hivi.—The  alternation  of  the  smguhxr  and 
plural  shews  that  the  subject  of  the  sentence  is  a  collective  person.    Ivimcm 
makes  ^^  the  subject  of  the  first  and  last  members,  and  regards  the  inter- 
mediate one  as  a  parenthesis :  Peace  shall  go  walking  straight  before  tiim 
or  straight  forwards,  i.  e.  shall  conduct  him  or  escort  him  out  ot  this  hte 
to  a  place  of  rest.     Aben  Ezra  refers  the  pronoun  in  in3?  to  Jcliovah 
n-alkimf  before  hiw,  i.  e.  in  his  presence.     (Compare  Judges  xviu.  <).)     But 
the  explanation  commonly  approved  is   that  of  Jarchi,  who  makes  this 
phrase  an  additional  description  of  the  righteous,  as  one  walking  m  his 
upriahteousness,  or,  as  Cocceius  expresses  it,  strainht  before  him{qmrecte 
ant°se  incedit).     It  seems  to  be  added  as  a  kind  of  afterthought   to  limit 
what  immediately  precedes,  and  preclude  its  application  to  all  the  cleart 
without  distinction.     The  peace  and  rest  here  meant  are  those  of  the  body 
in  the  grave,  and  of  the  soul  in  heaven  ;  the  former  being  frequently  re- 
ferred to  as  a  kind  of  pledge  and  adumbration  of  the   latter.      Vitringa 
understands  this  verse  as  stating  the  alleviations  which  attend  the  lament- 
able loss  of  good  men.    Ewald  regards  it  as  a  kind  of  pious  wish  analogous 
to  reqnicma  in  pace!     Gesenius  supposes  an  antithesis  between  this  ana 
the  next  verse  :  "  The  righteous  is  at  rest  (or  let  him  rest),  but  as  tor  you, 
&c.     This  suggestion  is  of  value  so  far  as  it  removes  the  appearance  oi 
abrupt  transition,  and  shews  the  continuity  of  the  discourse. 

3.  And  >je  (or  as  for  yon),  draw  near  hither,  i/r  s«»s  of  the  mtch  seed  oj 
the  adulterer  and  the  harlot.  According  to  Jarchi,  these  words  are  addressea 
to  the  survivors  of  the  iudgments  bv  which  the  righteous  are  described  as 
having  been  removed.    They  are  summoned,  according  to  the  same  Babbin, 


842  ISAIAH  LVII.  [Yer.  4. 

to  receive  their  punishment,  Lut  as  Kimchi  thinks,  simply  to  appear 
before  the  judgment-seat.  (Compare  chap.  xli.  1.)  The  description 
which  follows  was  of  course  designed  to  be  extremely  opprobrious  ;  but 
interpreters  differ  as  to  the  precise  sense  of  the  terms  employed.  Gesenius 
supposes  that  instead  of  simply  charging  them  with  certain  crimes,  he  brings 
the  charge  against  their  parents  ;  a  species  of  reproach  peculiarly  offensive 
to  the  orientals.  Hendewerk  supposes  this  form  of  contumely  to  have  been 
selected  for  the  purpose  of  identifying  those  who  were  immediately  ad- 
dressed with  their  progenitors.  In  tliis  way  he  ingeniously  accounts  for 
the  subsequent  description  of  idolatr}-,  which  Ewald  and  many  others  look 
upon  as  applicable  only  to  the  times  of  Isaiah  himself.  Vitriiiga  and  the 
older  writers  generally  give  a  more  specific  meaning  to  the  Prophet's  meta- 
phors, understanding  by  the  adulterer  the  idol,  by  the  harlot  the  apostate 
church,  and  by  the  children  the  corrupted  offspring  of  this  shameful 
apostasy. — Instead  of  sorceress  or  witch,  the  Septuagint  and  Targum  have 
iniquity.  Grotius  supposes  that  they  read  n3iy,  Rosenmiilkr  n?iy.  The 
Peshito  seems  to  make  it  a  participle  of  njj;  [nfflicled).  Jerome  quotes 
Theodotion  as  retaining  the  original  word  onena,  which  is  the  common 
text.  For  the  meaning  of  the  word,  see  vol.  i.  p.  100.  The  occult 
arts  are  mentioned  as  inseparable  adjuncts  of  idolatn-. — A  grammatical 
difficulty  is  presented  by  the  verb  '"i.5?jT11,  where  the  noun  ny,T  might  have 
been  expected.  None  of  the  modern  writers  seem  to  have  assumed,  a 
noun  of  that  form,  although  not  without  analogy.  The  cun-eut  explanation 
is  the  one  adopted  by  Gesenius,  which  supposes  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative 
(she  who  committed  whoredom),  and  a  change  of  construction  from  the 
participle  to  the  finite  verb.  Luzzatto  objects  that  in  all  such  cases  the 
participle  and  the  finite  verb  have  one  and  the  same  subject.  He  accord- 
ingly' agrees  with  Abarbcnel  and  Gousset  in  explaining  n.JTJ?  as  the  second 
person,  the  seed  of  an  adulterer,  and  (therefore)  thou  hast  thyself  committed 
whoredom.  Essentially  the  same  iuteqiretation  is  proposed  by  Piscator 
and  Cocceius. — Whoredom  and  sorcery  are  again  combined  in  Mai.  iii.  5, 
and  elsewhere. 

4.  At  uhum  do  you  amuse  yourselves  ?  At  uhom  do  you  enlarge  the  mouthy 
prolong  the  tongue  ?  Are  you  not  children  of  rebellion  ^or  apostasy)  a  seed  of 
falsehoud  f  This  retorts  the  impious  contempt  of  the  apostates  on  them- 
selves. There  is  no  need,  however,  of  supposing  that  they  had  cast  these 
verj'  same  reproaches  on  the  godly.  The  meaning  is  not  necessarily  that 
they  were  what  they  falsely  charged  their  brethren  with  being.  All  that 
is  certainly  implied  is,  that  they  were  unworthy  to  treat  them  with  contempt. 
Jarchi  gives  pV.  33^1?^  the  sense  of  delighting  in,  which  it  has  in  chap. 
Iviii.  11  ;  Job  xxii.  20,  xxvii.  10;  Ps.  xxxvii.  4  ;  but  most  interpreters 
suppose  the  next  t-lause  to  determine  that  the  worJs  express  derision.  The 
opening  or  stretching  of  the  mouth  in  mockery  is  mentioned,  Ps.  xxii.  8,  14, 
XXXV.  21  ;  Lam.  ii.  10,  and  in  chap.  Iviii.  9,  below.  The  lolling  of  the 
tongue  as  a  derisive  gesture  is  referred  to  by  Persius  in  poetry,  and  Li>'y 
in  prose.  According  to  Ilitzig  there  are  not  two  different  gestures  here  de- 
scribed, but  one,  the  mouth  being  opened  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the 
tongue.  The  fonn  of  expostulation  is  similar  to  that  in  chap,  xxxvii.  23. 
— Jarchi  supposes  the  prophets  to  be  specially  intended  as  the  objects  of 
this  wicked  mocker}'.  (See  2  Chron  xxxvi.  10.) — Uere  as  in  the  preceding 
verse,  some  regard  seed  and  children  as  mere  idiomatic  pleonasms,  or  at 
most,  as  rhetorical  embellislmienta.  Of  those  who  understand  them  strictly, 
some  su])pose  the  qualities  of  falsehood  and  apostasy  to  be  predicated  of 


Ver.  5.]  ISAIAH  LVIL  34* 

the  parents,  others  of  the  children.  Both  are  prohahly  included  ;  they  were 
worth}'  of  their  parentage,  and  dilligently  tilled  up  the  measure  of  their 
fiither's  iniquity.  (See  chap.  i.  4.)  By  "  a  seed  of  falsehood"  we  may 
understand  a  spurious  brood,  and  at  the  same  time  one  itself  perfidious  and 
addicted  to  a  false  religion. 

<5.  InJIamed  (or  inflaming  yourselves)  among  the  oaks  (or  terebinths),  under 
every  green  tree,  shiughtcring  the  children  in  the  valleys,  under  the  clefts  of 
the  roclis.  Their  idolatrous  practices  are  now  described  in  detail.  The 
first  word  of  this  verse  properly  denotes  libidinous  excitement,  and  is  here 
used  with  reference  to  the  previous  representation  of  idolatry  as  spiritual 
whoredom  or  adultery.  The  reflexive  version  of  the  Niphal  strengthens  the 
expression,  but  is  not  required  by  usage  or  the  context. — DyN2  is  commonly 
translated  with  idols,  in  accordance  with  the  ancient  versions.  The  objec- 
tions are  that  3.  is  not  a  natural  connective  of  the  foregoing  verb  with  its 
object,  and  that  *??<  is  constantly  employed  by  this  writer  with  direct  allusion 
to  its  proper  sense  {almighty),  and  in  reference  to  false  gods  only  where 
they  are  sarcastically  placed  in  opposition  to  the  true.  INIaurer,  Ewald, 
and  Knobel,  have  revived  the  old  interpretation  given  by  Jarchi  and  lumchi, 
which  gives  QvX  the  sense  of  oaks  or  terebinths,  as  in  chap.  i.  29.  The 
objection  usually  made,  viz.  that  the  next  words  are  descriptive  of  the  place, 
only  shews  how  easily  the  parallelism  may  be  made  to  sustain  either  side 
of  any  question.  The  intei-preter  has  only  to  allege  that  the  words  in 
question  must  or  must  not  mean  the  same  thing  with  the  next  words,  as 
the  case  may  be,  and  his  piu'pose  is  accomplished.  This  objection  is, 
moreover,  inconclusive,  because  it  proves  too  much  ;  for  it  equally  applies 
to  the  consecutive  expressions  in  the  last  clause,  both  of  which  are  univer- 
sally regarded  as  desci-iptive  of  localities.  Hitzig  renders  the  objection 
somewhat  more  plausible,  by  saying  that  the  terebinth  is  necessarily  in- 
cluded under  every  green  tree  ;  but  if  the  genius  of  the  language  would 
admit  of  two  consecutive  expressions  being  perfectly  synonymous,  how 
much  more  of  such  as  I'eally  involve  a  climax — "  among  the  terebinths, 
and  not  onlj'  so  but  under  every  green  tree."  Sacrificial  infanticide  is  often 
mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  as  a  rite  of  heathen  worship,  and  especially  of 
that  paid  to  Moloch,  in  which  it  seems  to  have  been  usual  to  burn  the 
children  ;  but  we  find  the  word  slaughter  frequently  applied  to  it  (See  Ezek. 
xvi.  21,  xxiii.  39),  either  in  the  wide  sense  of  slaying  (Gesenius),  or  because 
the  children  were  first  slaughtered  and  then  burnt  (Hitzig),  or  because  both 
modes  of  sacrifice  were  practised.  Hitzig  adds  very  coolly  to  his  observa- 
tions on  this  subject,  "  compare  Gen.  xxii.,"  a  reference  which  obviously 
implies  much  more  than  the  opinion  entertained  by  some  older  writers,  that 
human  sacrifices  owed  their  origin  to  a  misapprehension  of  the  history  of 
Isaac.  The  Hebrew  703  is  applied  both  to  a  valley  and  a  stream  flowing 
through  it.  Jerome  has  here  torrentlhus,  by  which  he  may  have  meant 
their  beds  or  channels.  According  to  Vitringa,  there  is  special  reference 
to  the  great  valley  of  Lebanon,  between  the  chains  of  Libanus  and  Anti- 
libanus,  a  region  infamous  for  its  idolatry.  A  much  more  natural  interpre- 
tation is  the  one  which  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  valleys  round  Jerusalem, 
in  one  of  which,  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  we  know  that  Moloch 
was  adored  with  human  victims.  The  clefts  of  the  rocks,  or  clefts  project- 
ing in  consequence  of  excavations,  is  a  circumstance  perfectly  in  keeping 
with  the  topogi-aphy  of  that  spot.  The  minute  description  of  idolatry  given 
in  this  passage  is  exceedingly  perplexing  to  those  writers  who  fix  the  date 


844  ISALUI  LVII.  [Vek.  G,  7. 

of  composition  at  the  period  of  the  exile.  Hendewerk,  as  we  have  seen, 
intrepi'lly  maintiiius  that  the  children  are  here  charged  with  the  sins  of 
their  fathers  ;  but  along  with  this  extravagant  assertion  he  makes  one  con- 
cession really  valuable,  namely,  that  the  elVorts  of  Geseuius  and  Hitzig  to 
reconcile  the  terms  of  the  description  with  the  state  of  things  during  the 
captivity  are  wholly  abortive.  A  perfect  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  afl'orded 
by  our  own  hypothesis,  that  the  Prophet,  from  the  whole  tield  of  vision 
spread  before  him,  singles  out  the  most  revolting  traits  and  images  by 
which  he  could  present  in  its  true  aspect  the  guilt  and  madness  of  apostasy 
from  God. 

6.  Among  the  smooth  (stones)  of  the  v  alley  'or  the  brook)  in  thy  portion; 
they,  they,  are  thy  lot ;  also  to  them  hast  thou  poured  out  a  drinh-ojf'ering, 
thou  hast  brought  up  a  meal-ojf'ering.  Shall  I  for  tliese  things  be  consoled 
(i.e.  satisfied  without  revenge)?  Thy  portion,  i.e.  the  objects  of  thy 
choice  and  thy  aflection  (Jer.  x.  IG).  The  word  stones  is  correctly  supplied 
in  the  Enghsh  Version.  (See  1  Sam.  xvii.  40.)  Others  supply  places,  and 
suppose  the  phrase  to  mean  open  cleared  spots  in  the  midst  of  wooded 
valleys,  places  cleared  for  the  performance  of  religious  rites.  In  favour  of 
this  meaning,  is  the  not  uufroqueut  use  of  the  Hebrew  word  to  signify  not 
hairy,  and  in  figurative  application  to  the  earth,  not  wot)ded,  free  from  trees. 
According  to  this  int.  rpretatiou,  which  is  that  of  Paulus.  De  Wette,  Hitzig, 
Iliickert,  and  Umbreit,  the  first  clause  merely  describes  the  place  where  the 
idols  were  worshipped.  According  to  the  other,  which  is  given  in  the 
Targuui,  and  approved  by  Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Grotius,  Clerieus,  Lowth, 
llosenmiiller,  Maurer,  and  Ivnobel,  it  is  a  descrii)tion  of  the  idols  them- 
selves. Smooth  stones  may  mean  either  polished  or  anointed  stones,  such 
as  were  set  up  by  the  patriiirchs  as  memorials  (Gen.  xxviii.  18,  xxxv.  12), 
and  by  the  heathen  as  objects  of  worship.  Thus  Arnobius  says,  that  before 
his  conversion  to  Christianity  he  never  saw  an  oiled  stone  {luhricatum 
lapidem  et  ex  olivi  unyuine  sordidatnm)  without  addressing  it  and  praying 
to  it.  This  explanation  of  the  first  clause  agrees  best  with  what  follows, 
and  with  the  emphatic  repetition,  they,  they,  are  thy  portion,  which  is  more 
natural   in   reference  to   the  objects   than    to   the  mere  place  of  worship. 

Most  writers  find  here  a  play  upon  the  double  sense  of  P7n  (^smooth  and 
portion) ;  but  Ewald  gives  to  both  the  sense  of  stone  {an  des  IViales  S'.ein- 

clu'u  ist  dein  Stein),  and  makes  them  the  plural  of  p/.n,  a  s\nionyme  of  i^H. 
(1  Sam.  wi'i.  40).  Beck,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  both  mean  part  or 
portion.  Libations  and  vegetable  offerings  are  here  put  for  otferings  in 
general,  as  being  the  simplest  kinds  of  sacrifice.  Th»'re  seems  to  be 
another  lusus  verborum  in  the  use  of  the  wcjrd  DH??*,  which  may  either  mean 
to  remain  satisfied  without  vengeance,  or  to  satisfy  one's  self  by  taking  it. 
(See  chap.  i.  24.) 

7.  On  a  hi(jh  and  elevated  mountain  tliou  hast  placed  thy  Itcil ;  also  there 
(or  even  thither)  hast  thou  gone  up  to  ojf'er  sacrifice-.  The  figure  of  adul- 
terous attachment  is  resumed.  (Compare  Ezek.  xvi.  24,  xxv.  81.)  That 
the  mountain  is  not  used  as  mere  figure  for  an  olevat*,'d  spot,  is  clear  from 
the  obvious  antithesis  between  it  and  the  valleys  before  mentioned.  Still 
less  ground  is  there  for  supposing  any  reference  to  the  worship  of  moun- 
tains themselves.  Uy  the  bed  here,  Spencer  understands  the  couch  on 
which  the  ancients  reclined  at  their  artificial  feasts.  All  other  writers  seem 
to  give  it  the  same  sense  as  in  Prov.  vii.  17,  and  E/ek.  xxiii.  17.  In  the 
labt  clause  the  figure  is  resolved,  and  making  the  bed  explained  to  mean 


Ver.  8,  9.]  ISAIAH  LVII.  845 

offering  sacrifice.     Knobel  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  the  labour  of 
ascending  mountains  as  a  proof  of  self-denying  zeal  in  the  worshipper. 

8.  And  behind  the  door  and  the  door-post  thou  hast  placed  thj  memorial, 
far  aiuay  from  me  thou  had  uncovered  (thyself  or  thy  bed),  and  hunt  <jone 
up,  thou  hast  enlarged  thy  bed  and  hast  covenanted  from  them,  thou  hast 
loved  their  bed,  thou  hast  provided  room.  Interpreters  are  much  divided  as 
to  the  particular  expressions  of  this  very  obscure  verse,  although  agreed  in 
understanding  it  as  a  description  of  the  grossest  idolatiy.  Gesenius  and 
Maurer  explain  in3T  as  meaning  memory,  by  which  the  former  understands 
posthumous  fame  or  notoriety,  the  latter  something  cherished  or^  remem- 
bered with  atiection,  meaning  here  the  idol  as  a  beloved  object.  Thu  same 
sense  is  obtained  in  another  way  by  those  who  make  the  word  mean  a 
memorial,  or  that  which  brings  to  mind  an  absent  object.  In  this  sense 
the  image  of  a  false  god  may  be  reckoned  its  memorial.  Grotius  and 
Hitzig  suppose  an  allusion  to  Deut.  vi.  9,  the  former  supposing  that  the 
idolaters  are  here  described  as  doing  just  the  opposite  of  what  is  there 
required,  the  latter  that  the  Prophet  represents  them  as  putting  the  re- 
quired memorial  of  Jehovah's  sole  divinity  out  of  sight,  by  going  to  an 
inner  apartment.  A  still  more  natural  application  of  the  same  sense  would 
be  to  suppose  that  they  are  here  described  as  thrusting  the  memorial  of 
Jehovah  into  a  corner,  to  make  room  for  that  of  the  beloved  idol.  Some 
suppose  a  special  reference  to  the  worship  of  Penates,  Lares,  or  household 
gods.  The  rest  of  the  verse  describes  idolatry  as  adulterous  intercourse. 
DHQ  m3n  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean,  thou  hast  covenanted 
with  them  ;  thou  hast  bargained  for  a  reward  from  them  ;  thou  hast  made 
a  covenant  with  some  of  them.  The  masculine  form  ni3n  is  used  for  the 
feminine,  as  in  chap.  xv.  5.  Hitzig  supposes  this  to  have  been  usual  for 
Vav  couversive.  (Compare  Ewald's  H.  G.  p.  043,  S.  G.  §  234.)  The 
most  probable  interpretation  of  the  last  words  in  the  verse  is  that  which 
gives  to  n;  the  same  sense  as  in  chap.  Ivi.  5.  This  is  strongly  favoured  by 
the  parallel  expression  ']22'C'r2  nnmn.  Others  understand  it  to  mean, 
wherever  thou  hast  seen  (their)  memorial  or  monument ;  others,  wherever 
thou  scest  a  hand  (beckoning  or  inviting  thee).  The  sense  gratuitously  put 
upon  the  phrase  by  Doderlein,  and  the  praises  given  him  for  the  discovery, 
are  characteristic  of  neological  aesthetics. 

9.  Ayid  thou  hast  gone  to  the  king  in  oil,  and  hast  multiplied  thine 
unguents,  and  hast  sent  thine  amba-'isadors  even  to  a  far-off  [land),  and  hast 
gone  (or  sent)  down  even  to  hell.  The  first  verb  has  been  variously  ex- 
plained as  meaning  to  see,  to  look  around,  to  appear  to  be  adorned,  to  sing, 
to  carry  gifts,  which  last  is  founded  on  the  analog}'  of  the  noun  nnii^'Jil  a 
gift  or  present  (1  Sam.  ix.  7).  Gesenius  derives  the  noun  from  this  verb 
in  the  sense  of  going  iviih  or  carrying,  and  the  modern  writers  generally 
acquiesce  in  this  interpretation  founded  on  Arabic  analog}'.  By  the  Jang 
some  miderstand  the  king  of  Babylon  or  Egj-pt,  and  refer  the  clause  to  the 
eagerness  with  which  the  Prophet's  contemporaries  sought  out  foreign 
alliances.  Most  writers  understand  it  as  a  name  for  idols  generally,  or  for 
Moloch  in  particular.  iP??'^  i^  commonly  explained  to  mean  toith  od  or 
ointment  (as  a  gift) ;  but  Hitzig  understands  it  to  mean  in  oil,  i.e.  anointed, 
beautiiied,  adorned.  Upon  the  explanation  of  this  phrase  of  course  depends 
that  of  the  next,  where  the  unguents  are  said  to  be  multiplied,  either  in  the 
way  of  gifts  to  others,  or  as  means  of  self-adornment.  Gesenius  and  the 
later  writers  make  v'S^'J?  qualify  ''D^}^'^  understood  as  a  kind  of  auxiliary, 
thou  haU  se7it  dovxn  deep  to  hell,  i.  e.  to   the  lower   world,  as  opposed  to 


810  ISAIAH  LVII.  [Ver.  10,  11. 

heaven,  of  which  Moloch  was  esteemed  the  king.  (See  the  same  construc- 
tion of  the  verb  in  Jer.  xiii.  18.)  It  is  much  more  uatui-ul,  however,  to 
give  it  an  independent  meaning  as  expressive  of  extreme  indignation  and 
abhorrence.  There  is  no  need  of  ascribing  a  reflexive  meaning  to  the 
Hiphil,  as  the  same  end  may  be  gained  by  supplying  tviy,  or  some  other 
noun  denoting  conduct.  Maurer  wonders  that  any  interpreter  should  fail 
to  see  that  the  simplest  explanation  of  this  clause  is  tliat  which  makes  it 
signify  extreme  remoteness.  But  nothmg  could  in  fact  be  more  unusual 
or  unnatural  than  the  expression  of  this  idea  by  the  phrase,  huinhUng  even 
to  Nuol. 

lU.  In  the  (jreatncss  of  thy  ivuy  (or  the  abundance  of  thy  travel)  tliov, 
hast  labour ;  {but)  thou  hast  not  said,  There  is  no  ho])c.  Thou  hast  found 
the  life  of  thy  hand;  therefore  thou  art  not  weak.  Whether  way  be  under- 
stood as  a  figure  for  the  whole  course  of  life,  or  as  involving  a  specitic 
allusion  to  the  journeys  mentioned  in  ver.  9,  the  general  sense  is  still  the 
same,  viz.  that  no  exertion  in  the  service  of  her  false  gods  could  weary  or 
discourage  her.  This  is  so  obviously  the  meaning  of  the  whole,  that  the 
common  version  of  J^VV,  {thou  art  wearied)  seems  to  be  precluded,  the  rather 
as  the  verb  may  be  used  to  denote  the  cause  as  well  as  the  ell'ect,  i.  ^.exertion 
no  less  than  fatigue.  Lowth  reverses  the  declaration  of  the  text  by  omitting 
the  negative  {thou  ha^t  s(rid)  on  the  authority  of  a  single  manuscript,  in 
which  the  text,  as  Kocher  well  observes,  was  no  doubt  conjecturally  changed 
in  order  to  conform  it  to  Jer.  ii.  25,  xviii.  1'2.  In  both  these  places,  the 
verb  t."N13  is  employed  as  it  is  here  impersonally,  di'i^jicratiiin  est,  a  form  of 
speech  to  which  we  have  no  exact  equivalent  in  English. — Saadias  and 
Koppe  give  ri*n  the  sense  of  animal  or  beast,  in  reference  to  idols  of  that 
form.  All  other  \\Titers  seem  agreed  that  the  essential  idea  which  the 
whole  phi-ase  conveys  is  that  of  strenyth.  Some  accordingly  attach  this 
specific  sense  to  ri*n,  others  to  1* ;  but  it  rather  belongs  to  the  two  in 
combination.  In  translation,  this  essential  sense  may  be  conveyed  under 
several  different  forms :  Thou  hast  found  thy  hand  still  alive,  or  still 
able  to  sustain  life,  &c.  n^n  does  not  merely  mean  to  be  sick  or  to  be 
grieved,  but  to  be  weak  or  weakened,  as  in  Judges  xvi.  7,  xi.  17. — 
According  to  Luzzato,  uay  means  specifically  wicked  way,  as  in  Prov. 
xxxi.  8. 

11.  And  whom  ha4  thou  feared  and  been  afraid  of  that  thou  shotddejtt 
lie/  a)id  me  thou  hast  not  remembered,  thou  hast  not  called  to  mind  (or  laid 
to  heait).  Is  it  not  (because)  /  hoUl  my  peace,  and  that  of  old,  that  thou 
will  not  fear  me  f  l)e  Dieu,  Cocceius,  and  Vitringa,  understand  this  as 
ironical,  and  as  meaning  that  the  fear  which  they  affected  as  a  ground  for 
their  forsaking  God  had  no  foundation.  Gosenius  and  others  understand 
it  as  a  serious  and  consolatory  declaration  that  they  had  no  cause  to  fear. 
Hitzig  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  mixture  of  idolatrous  worship  with  the 
forms  of  the  true  religiou  in  the  exile.  With  the  exception  of  the  last 
gratuitous  restriction,  this  agrees  well  with  the  fonn  of  expression,  and  may 
bo  applied  to  alt  hypocritical  professors  of  the  truth.  They  have  no  real 
fear  of  God  ;  why  then  should  they  atVect  to  servo  him  ?  His  forbearance 
only  sen-ed  to  harden  and  embolden  them.  "  Have  I  not  long  kept  silence  ? 
It  cannot  bo  that  you  fear  me."  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  making 
the  last  clause  interrogative,  as  Ewald  does,  wilt  thou  not  fear  me?  Still 
more  gratuitous  and  violent  is  De  Wette's  construction,  *'  Thou  needest  not 
have  feared  me."  This  is  certainly  no  better  than  Luther's  interrogative 
construction  of  the  last  clause,  "  Do  you  think  that  1  will  always  hold  my 


Ver.  12,  13.]  ISAIAH  LVII.  347 

peace?"  Luzzatto  renders  ''?;t?ri  ''?  that  tliou  miyhlest /ail,  and  refers  to 
chap.  Iviii.  1 1 .  But  waters  are  there  said  to  deceire  the  expectation  by 
their  fiiilure,  an  expression  which  is  utterly  inapplicable  to  the  iailurc  of 
the  strength.  Instead  of  ch)V^)  Lowth  reads  Qvyo-1,  and  hide  {mij  eyes), 
with  the  noun  omitted  as  in  Ps.  x.  1.  Henderson  also  thinks  the  common 
i-eading  justly  suspected,  because  the  Complutension  and  other  editions, 
with  a  number  of  manuscripts,  read  D7J;d1.  But  this  is  merely  the  defective 
orthography  of  the  common  text,  and  precisely  the  kind  of  variation  which 
most  frequently  occurs  in  Hebrew  manuscripts.  Kocher,  moreover,  has 
shewn  to  the  satisfaction  of  most  later  writers,  that  the  1  before  D^iyo  is 
equivalent  to  el  quidem  in  Latin,  or  and  that  too  in  English. — The  use  of 
n^'n  is  the  same  as  in  chap.  Ixiv.  11,  Ixv.  G. — The  image  is  identical  with 
that  presented  in  chap.  xlii.  14.  Knobel  contrives  to  limit  the  passage 
to  the  Babylonish  exile,  by  explaining  this  verse  as  a  declaration  that  the 
Jews  had  no  need  of  the  Babylonian  idols  to  protect  them,  and  alleging 
that  a  portion  of  the  captives  had  renounced  the  worship  of  Jehovah  be- 
cause they  thought  his  power  insufficient  to  deliver  them.  In  the  same 
taste  and  spirit  he  explains  o^SVQ  to  mean  since  the  beginning  of  the  exile. 
— Compare  with  this  verse  chap.  xl.  27,  and  li.  12,  18. 

12.  /  -aiil  declare  thy  riyhtcousness  and  thy  loorks,  and  they  shall  not 
jnofil  (or  avail  thee).  Lowth  reads  my  right eoxisness,  on  the  authority  of 
the  Peshito  and  a  few  manuscripts.  Hendewerk  understands  T{^i?T'!V  to 
mean  iJiy  desert,  thy  righteous  doom  ;  Ewald,  thy  justification  ;  Umbreit, 
thy  righteousness,  which  I  will  give  thee  notwithstanding  thy  unworthi- 
ness.  Gesenius  and  Kuobel  still  adhere  to  their  imaginary  sense  of  happi- 
ness, salvation,  which  is  not  only  arbitrary  in  itself,  but  incoherent  with 
the  next  clause,  which  they  are  obliged  to  understand  as  meaning,  as  for 
thy  own  works  they  can  profit  thee  nothing.  Knobel,  however,  follows 
Hitzig  in  making  thy  luorks  mean  thy  idols,  elsewhere  called  the  work  of 
men's  fingers.  Be  Dieu  makes  the  last  clause  an  answer  to  the  first. 
Shall  I  declare  thy  righteousness  and  works  ?  They  will  profit  thee  no- 
thing. But  this,  in  the  absence  of  the  form  of  intorrogation,  is  entirely 
arbitrary.  The  earlier  writers  who  retain  the  sense  of  Hi^nv  for  the  most 
part  follow  Jerome  and  Zwingle  in  making  the  first  clause  ii'onical.  ^  But 
this  is  unnecessary,  as  the  simplest  and  most  obvious  construction  is  in  all 
respects  the  most  satisfiictory.  /  ivill  declare  thy  righteousness,  i.  e.  I  will 
shew  clearly  whether  thou  art  righteous,  and  in  order  to  do  this  I  must 
declare  thy  ivorks ;  and  if  this  is  done,  they  cannot  profit  thee,  because, 
instead  of  justifying,  they  will  condemn  thee.  There  is  no  need,  there- 
fore, of  supposing  1  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  clause  to  mean  ivhich,J'or, 
that,  or  anything  but  and.  One  of  the  latest  writers  on  the  passage, 
Thenius,  agrees  with  one  of  the  oldest,  Jarchi,  in  explaining  the  first 
clause  to  mean,  I  will  shew  you  how  you  may  be  or  ought  to  be  righteous ; 
but  this  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  a  simple  statement  of  the  true  sense, 
which  has  been  already  given. 

13.  /??  thy  crying  (t.  e.  when  thou  criest  for  help),  let  thy  gatherings  save 
thee  !  And  (yet)  all  of  them  the  ivind  shall  take  %ip,  and  a  breath  shall 
take  away,  and  the  {one)  trusting  in  me  shall  inherit  the  land  and  possess 
my  holy  mountain.  This  is  merely  a  strong  contrast  between  the  impo- 
tence of  idols  and  the  power  of  Jehovah  to  protect  their*  followers  respec- 
tively. Hitzig,  without  a  change  of  sense,  makes  "^i^^l  an  ironical 
exclamation,  they  shall  save  thee  !      This  is  much  better  than  De  Wette's 


318  ISATAll  LVII.  [Ver.  14. 

interronjative  construction,  nill  they  save  thee  f  wliicb  is  altopjetber  arbitrary. 
Most  of  the  modem  \\TitL'r.s  follow  Jarcbi  in  cxi)liiinin<^  TV^r?  to  meau,  tby 
gatherinj^s  of  gods,  thy  whole  pantheon,  as  Gesenius  expresses  it ;  so  called, 
as  Maiirer  thinks,  because  collected  from  all  nations.  (Compare  Jer.  ii.  28.) 
Knobil  denies  that  there  was  any  such  collection,  or  that  gods  could  be 
described  as  blowu  awa}',  and  therefore  goes  back  to  Vitringa's  explanation 
of  the  word  as  meaning  armies,  /.  e.  as  be  thinks  those  of  liabylon,  in  which 
the  idolatrous  Jews  trusted  to  deliver  them  from  C}Tus,  and  which  might 
therefore  bo  correctly  called  their  gathoringa  !  It  may  be  questioned 
whether  any  of  these  explanations  is  entitled  to  the  preference  above  that  of 
Abeu  Ezra,  who  appears  to  understand  the  word  generically,  as  denoting  all 
that  they  could  scrape  together  for  their  own  security,  including  idols,  armies, 
and  all  other  objects  of  rebance.  This  exposition  is  the  more  entitled  to  re- 
gard, because  the  limitation  of  the  p.issage  to  the  exile  is  entirely  gratuitous, 
and  it  is  evidently  levelled  against  all  unbelieving  dependence  upon  any  thing 
but  God. — In  the  consecution  of  ^5[]i  and  nn  there  is  a  climax :  even  a  wind  is 
not  required  for  the  purpose ;  a  mere  breath  would  be  sutbcient.  This  fine 
stroke  is  ellaced  by  J.  D.  Michaelis's  interpretation  of  the  second  word  as 
meaning  vapour,  and  the  whole  clause  as  descriptive  of  evaporation.  The  pro- 
mise of  the  Ifist  clause  is  identical  with  that  in  chaps,  xlix.  8,  Ix.  21,  Ixv.  9  ; 
Ps.  xxxvii.  11  ;  Ixix.  37,  88;  Mat.  v.  5  ;  Rev,  v.  10. — Those  who  restrict 
the  passage  to  the  Babylonish  exile  must  of  course  explain  the  promise  as 
relating  merely  to  the  restoration ;  but  the  context  and  the  usage  of  the 
Scriptures  is  in  favour  of  a  wider  explanation,  in  which  the  pos.session  of 
the  land  is  an  appointed  symbol  of  the  highest  blessings  which  are  in 
reserve  for  true  believers,  here  and  hereafter. 

14.  And  lie  liluill  say,  Cast  up,  catt  up,  cUar  (lit'  uaij,  tah'  up  the  stum- 
U'uui-blnck  from  the  ivay  of  my  people  !  Lowth  an<i  J.  I>.  Michaelis  read 
*1)?N1  (^ihen  will  1  say),  the  correctness  of  which  change  Lowth  alleges  to  be 
plain  from  the  pronoun  my  in  the  last  clause,  a  demonstration  which 
appears  to  have  had  small  efi'ect  upon  succeeding  writers. — Gesenius  and 
Ewald  make  "I'pN  impersonal,  they  say,  one  says,  or  it  is  said.  Vitringa  in 
like  manner  long  before  had  paraphrased  it  thus,  e.rit  ru.v ;  and  Aben  Ezra 
earlier  still  had  projiosed  substantially  the  same  thing,  by  supplying  ^5^1i5''^ 
as  the  subject  of  1?5<.  Muurer  agrees  with  the  English  Version  in  ccm- 
necting  this  verb  with  the  foregoing  sentence,  and  making  it  agree  with 
npinn,  (Jie  one  tnistin</.  The  sense  will  then  be  that  the  man  whose  faith 
is  thus  rewarded  will  express  his  joy  wlicn  he  beholds  the  promise  veritied. 
Hitzig  thinks  it  0(jually  evident,  however,  that  Jehovah  is  the  speaker;  and 
Umbreit  further  recommends  this  hypothesis  by  ingeniously  combining  it 
with  what  is  said  of  the  divine  forbearance  in  ver.  11.  He  who  had  long 
been  silent  speaks  at  last,  and  that  to  announce  the  restoration  of  his 
people.  The  imago  hero  presented,  and  the  form  of  the  expression,  are 
the  same  as  in  clmi)s.  xxxv.  8,  xl.  8,  xlix.  11,  Ixii.  10. — Knobel  is  not 
ashamed  to  make  tlio  verso  mean  that  the  way  of  the  returning  captives 
homo  from  Babylon  shall  be  convenient  and  agreeable.  There  is  certainly 
not  much  to  clioose,  in  point  of  tasto  and  exegetical  discretion,  between 
this  hypothesis  and  that  of  Vitringa,  who  labours  to  tlnd  references  to  the 
lU'formation,  and  the  subsecjuent  elVorts  made  by  mini.stcrs  and  magistrates  ' 
to  take  away  all  scandals,  both  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  with  special 
allusion,  as  he  seems  to  think,  to  the  hundred  grievances  presented  to 
Pope  Adrian  by  the  Gernian  jirinccs  in  1528.  Such  interpreters  have  no 
right  to  despise  each  other :  for  the  only  error  with  which  either  can  be 


Ver.  15.]  ISAIAH  LVII.  319 

charged,  is  that  of  fixing  upon  one  fipecific  instance  of  the  thirg  foretold, 
and  making  that  the  whole  theme  and  the  sole  theme  of  a  prophecy,  ^^hi(•h, 
in  design,  as  well  as  fact,  is  perfectly  unlimited  to  any  one  event  or 
period,  yet  perfectly  defined  as  a  description  of  God's  mode  of  dealing  with 
his  church,  and  with  those  who  altfeough  in  it  are  not  of  it. 

15.   For  ilius  saith  the  Hiijh  and  Exalled  One,  ivJiahitivf/  tierriily,  avd 
Holy  is  his  name  :  On  high  and  hohj  mil  I  dwell,  and  with  the  hrolccn  and 
htivdile  of  spirit,  to  revive  the  spirit  of  the  htimhlr,  and  to  revive  the  heart  oj 
the  hroken  (or  contnte  ones).     This  verse  assigns  a  reason  why  the  fore- 
going promise  might  he  trusted,   notwithstanding   the    infinite    disparity 
between  the   giver   and  the   objects  of  his  favour.     Notwithstanding  the 
intimate  connection  of  the  verses,  there  is  no  need  of  referring  thvs  saith  to 
what  goes  before,  as  if  he  had  said,  these  assurances  are  uttered  by  the 
High  and  Exalted  One.     Analogy  and  usage  necessarily  connect  them  with 
what  follows,  the  relation  of  the  verse  to  that  before  it  being  clearly  indi- 
cated by  the  for  at  the  beginning.     You   need  not  hesitate  to  trust  the 
promise  which  is  involved  in  this  command,  for  the  High  and  Holy  One 
has  made  the  following  solemn  declaration. — The  only  reason  for  trans- 
lating NLJ'3  exalted  rather  than  hfty,  is  that  the  former  retains  the  participial 
form  of  the   original.     The  same  two  epithets  are  joined  in  chap.  vi.  1, 
which  is  regarded  by  the  modern  critics  as  the  oldest  extant  composition 
of  the  genuine  Isaiah.     J.  D.  Michaelis  disregards  the  Masoretic  accents, 
and  explains  the  next  words  as  meaning  that  his  name  is  the  inhabitant  of 
eternity  and  the  sanctuary,  which  last  he  regards  as  a  hondiadys  for  the  ever- 
lasting sanctuary,  i.  e.  heaven  as  distinguished  from  material  and  temporary 
structures.     Luzzatto  gives  the  same  construction  of  the  clause,  but  sup- 
poses the  noun  13^  (like  the  cognate  preposition)  to  be  applicable  to  space 
as  well  as  time,  and  in  this  case  to  denote  infinite  height,  which  sense  he 
likewise  attaches  to   D^iV  when  predicated  of  the  hills,   &c.     All  other 
modern  writers  follow  the  accentuation,   making  hilij  the   predicate   and 
name  the  subject  of  a  distinct  proposition.     On  this  hypothesis,  ^'Hi^  may 
either  be  an  adjective  qualifying  OP',  Ms  name  is  hohj,  i.  e.  divine,  or  in- 
finitely above  every  other  name;  or  it  may  be  absolutely  used,  and  qualify 
Jehovah  understood,  his  name  is  Holy  or  the  Holy  One.     The  ambiguity 
in  English  is  exactly  copied  from  the  Hebrew. — As  Oil'?  is  not  an  adjec- 
tive, but   a  substantive,  denoting  a  high  place,  the  following  i^'Hi^  must 
either  be  referred  to  Dipp  understood,  or  construed  with  DhD  itself,  a 
height,  and  that  a  holy  one,  will  I  inhabit. — Ewald  takes  HNI  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  last  clause  as  a  sign  of  the  nominative  absolute,  and  the 
infinitives  as  expressive  of  necessity  or  obligation  :  And  as  for  the  broken 
and  contrite  of  spirit,  (it  is  necessar}')  to  revive,  S:c.     Henderson  and  Knobel 
regard  n^  as  the  objective  particle,  shewing  what  follows  to  be  governed 
directly  by  the  verb  P^p'^  ;   "I  inhabit  (or  dwell  in)  the  broken  and  humble 
of  spirit."    This  would  be  more  natural  if  the  other  objects  of  the  same  verb 
were  preceded  by  the  particle  ;  but  as  this  is  not  the  cnse,  the  most  satis- 
lactory  construction  is  the  common  one,  which  takes  riX  as  a  preposition 
meaning  tvith. — The  future  meaning  given  to  p3t."NI  by  Lowth  is  strictly 
aocuvate,  and  more  expressive  than  the  present,  as  it  iiitimnles  that  not- 
withstanding God's  condescension  he  will  still  maintain  his  dignity.     The 
idea  of  habitual  or  perpetual  residence  is  still  implied. — The  revivin"  of 
the  spirit  and  the  heart  is  a  common  Hebrew  phrase  for  consolation  and 
encouragement. — Hitzig  denies  that  contrition  and  humility  are  here  pro- 
pounded as  conditions  or  prerequisites,  and  imderstauds  the  clause  as  a 


850  ISAIAH  LVIl.  [Ver.  1G,  17. 

description  of  the  actual  distress  and  degradation  of  the  exiles. — Vitringa 
finds  here  a  specific  reference  to  the  early  sufferers  in  the  cause  of  reforma- 
tion, such  as  the  Waldenses  and  Bohemian  Brethren. — Compare  with  this 
verse  chaps,  xxxiii.  5,  Ixiii.  15,  Ixvi.  1,  2;  Ps.  xxii.  1,  cxiii,  5,  G,  cxxxviii,  6. 
IG.  For  not  to  etemify  will  I  contend,  and  nal  to  jierpetuity  will  I  he 
wroth  ;  for  the  spirit  from  before  me  will  faint,  and  the  souls  (vjhich)  I  have 
made.     A  reason  for  exercising  mercy  is  here  drawn  from  the  frailty  of 
the  creature.     (Compare  chap.  xlii.   3,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  38,  39,  ciii.  9,  14.) 
Suffering   heing   always   represented  in  Scripture  as  the  consequence  of 
sin,   its  inthction  is  often  metaphorically  spoken  of  as  a  divine   quaiTel 
or   controversy   with   the   sufferer.       (See  vol.    i.    p.    440.)  —  The   verb 
SjIDi?!  has  been  vaiiously  explained,   as  meaning  to  go  forth  (Septuagint 
and  Vulgate),  return   (De   Dieu),  have  mercy  (CappeHus),  &c.  ;  but  the 
only  sense  sustained  by  etymology  and  usage  is  that  of  covering.     The 
Targum  seems  to  make  the  clause  descriptive  of  a  resurrection  similar  to 
that  in  Ezekiel's  vision,  the  life-giving  Spirit  covering  the  bones  with  flesh, 
and  breathing  into  the  nostrils  the  breath  of  hfe.     Cocceius  understands 
it  of  the  Spirit  by  his  influences  covering  the  earth  as  the  waters  cover 
the  sea  (chap.  xi.   9).      Clericus  makes  it  descriptive  of  the  origin  of 
man,  in  which  the  spirit  covers  or  clothes  itself  with  matter.     The  modern 
writers  are  agreed  in  making  it  intransitive  and  elliptical,  the  full  expres- 
sion being  that  of  covering  with  darkness,  metaphorically  applied  to  extreme 
depression,  faintncss,  and  stupor.     Maurer  translates  it  even  here,  caliqine 
ohiolritur.    The  figurative  use  is  clear  from  the  analogy  of  Ps.  Ixi.  8,  cii.  1, 
compared  with  that  of  the  reflexive,  form  in  Ps.  cvii.  5,  cxliii.  4,  Jonah 
ii.  8.     Rosenmiiller  follows  Jarchi  in  giving  ^3  the  sense  ofwheii,  and  takes 
the  last  clause  as  a  promise  :  when  the  spirit  from  before  me  faints,  I  gi-ant 
a  breathing  time  {respiraliones  concedo).     The  credit  of  this  last  interpreta- 
tion is  perhaps   due  to  Grotius,  who   translates   the  clause,  et  venlulum 
faciam.     But  HOL*'?  is  evidently  used  as  an  equivalent  to  i^'^^  in  Prov.  xx. 
27,  and  is  here  the  parallel  expression  to  nil.     Lowth's  translation,  /ji'j»^ 
s(nils,  multiplies  words  without  expressing  the  exact  sense  of  the  Hebrew, 
which  is  hreatJis.     The  ellipsis  of  the  relative  is  the  one  so  often  mentioned 
heretofore  as  common  both  in  Hebrew  and  English.      From  before  me  is 
connected  by  the  accents  with  the  verb  to  faint,  and  indicates  God's  pre- 
sence as  the  cause  of  the  depression.     A  more  perfect  parallelism  would, 
however,  be  obtained  by  understanding  from  before  we  as  referring  to  the 
origin  of  human  life  and  as  corresponding  to  the  words  irhich  I  hare  made 
in  the  other  member.     Umbreit's  explanation  of  the  verse,  as  meaning 
that  God  cannot  be  for  ever  at  enmity  with  any  of  his  creatures,  is  as  old 
as  Kimchi,  but  without  foundation  in  the  text  and  inconsistent  with  the 
uniform  teaching  of  the  Scriptures. 

17.  For  his  covetous  iniipiity  I  am  wroth  and  will  smite  him,  {I  will) 
hide  me  and  will  be  wroth  ;  for  he  has  gone  on  turning  away  (t.  c.  persever- 
ing in  apostasy)  in  the  way  of  his  heart  (or  of  his  own  inclination).  The 
futures  in  the  first  clause  shew  that  both  the  punishment  and  mercy  are 
8till  future.  The  interpreters  have  generally  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  ^ 
before  these  futures  is  not  Vav  conversive,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  text 
or  context  to  require  or  justify  either  an  arbitrary  ehaiige  of  pointing,  or  an 
arbitrary  disregard  of  the  ditlercnce  between  the  tenses. — The  first  phrase 
in  the  verse  (^VV?  PV)  has  been  very  variously  nnder.-tood.  Lowth  says 
the  usual  meaning  of  tlic  second  noun  would  here  be  "  (juite  beside  the 
purpose,"  and  accordingly  omits  the  suliix  and  takes  i'^'5  as  an  adverb 


Vee.  18.]  ISAIAH  LVll.  351 

meaning  for  a  short  time  ;  of  which  it  can  only  be  said  that  the  criticism 
and  lexicogi-aphy  are  worthy  of  each  other.  Koppe  adopts  another  desperate 
expedient.by  calHng  in  the  Arabic  analogy  to  prove  that  the  true  sense  of 
yV?  is  scortatio.  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Henderson  make  one  noun  simply 
qualify  the  other,  and  explain  the  whole  as  meaning  his  accumulated  guilt 
or  his  exorbitant  iniquity.  Vitringa  and  Gesenius  suppose  covetousness  to 
be  here  used  in  a  wide  sense  for  all  selfish  desires  or  undue  attachment  to 
the  things  of  time  and  sense,  a  usage  which  they  think  may  be  distinctly 
traced  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  (See  Ps.  cxix.  3G,  Ezek. 
xxxiii.  31,  1  Tim.  vi.  10,  Eph.  v.  5.)  Perhaps  the  safest  and  most  satis- 
factory hypothesis  is  that  of  Maurer,  who  adheres  to  the  strict  sense  of  the 
word,  but  supposes  covetousness  to  be  here  considered  as  a  temptation, 
and  incentive  to  other  forms  of  sin. — The  singular  pronouns  his  and  him 
refer  to  the  collective  noun  people,  or  rather  to  Israel  as  an  ideal  person. — 
IflPD  is  an  adverbial  form,  rendered  equivalent  in  this  case  by  its  collocation 
the  futures  which  precede  and  follow.  In  the  last  clause  the  waiter  sud- 
denly reverts  from  the  future  to  the  past,  in  order  to  assign  the  cause  of 
the  infliction  threatened  in  the  first.  This  connection  can  be  rendered 
clear  in  English  only  by  the  use  of  the  word  for,  although  the  literal  transla- 
tion would  be  and  he  went.  Jarchi's  assumption  of  a  transposition  is 
entirely  unnecessary.  Hcndewerk's  translation,  hut  he  went  on,  rests  upon 
the  false  assumption  that  the  first  clause  is  historical.  Luther  seems  to 
understand  the  last  clause  as  describing  the  efi'ect  of  the  divine  stroke  (da 
gingen  sie  hin  und  her).  With  the  closing  words  of  this  clause  compare 
chaps,  xlii.  24,  hii.  6,  Ivi.  11,  Ixv.  12. — The  best  refutation  of  Vitringa's 
notion,  that  this  verse  has  special  reference  to  the  period  from  the  death  of 
Charles  the  Bald  to  the  beginning  of  the  Piefoimation,  is  suggested  by  his 
own  apology  for  not  going  into  the  details  of  the  fulfilment :  "  Narrandi 
nullus  hie  finis  est  si  inceperis." 

18.  His  ways  I  hare  seen,  and  1  will  heal  him,  and  ivill  guide  him,  and 
restore  comforts  rinto  him  and  to  his  mourners.  The  healing  here  meant  is 
forgiveness  and  conversion,  as  correctly  explained  by  Kimchi,  with  a  refer- 
ence to  chap.  vi.  10,  and  Ps.  xli.  5.  This  obvious  meaning  of  the  figure 
creates  a  difficulty  in  explaiuing  the  foregoing  words  so  as  to  make  the 
connection  appear  natural.  Gesenius  supposes  an  antithesis,  and  makes 
the  particle  adversative.  "  I  have  seen  his  (evil)  ways,  but  I  will  (never- 
theless) heal  him."  There  is  then  a  promise  of  gratuitous  forgiveness 
similar  to  that  in  chap,  xliii.  25,  and  xlviii.  9.  The  Targum  puts  a  favour- 
able sense  on  ivays,  as  meaning  his  repentance  and  conversion.  So  Jarchi, 
I  have  seen  his  humiliation;  and  Ewald,  I  have  seen  his  patient  endurance 
of  trial.  Hitzig  strangely  understands  the  words  to  mean  that  God  saw 
punishment  to  be  without  eflect  and  therefore  pardoned  him,  and  cites  in  illus- 
tration Gen.  viii.  21,  where  the  incorrigible  wickedness  of  men  is  assigned 
as  a  reason  for  not  again  destroying  them.  But  even  if  this  sense  were 
correct  and  natural,  considered  in  itself,  it  could  hardly  be  extracted 
from  the  words  here  used.  Knobel  supposes  rcays  to  mean  neither  good 
nor  evil  works  but  sufterings,  the  length  of  which,  without  regard  to  guilt 
or  innocence,  induced  Jehovah  to  deliver  them. — /  ivill  guide  him  is  sup- 
posed by  Hitzig  to  mean  I  will  guide  him  as  a  shepherd  guides  his  flock 
through  the  wilderness.  (See  chaps,  xlviii.  21,  xlix.  10.)  But  as  this 
does  not  agi-ee  with  the  mention  of  consolation  and  of  mourners  in  the 
other  clause,  it  is  better  to  rest  in  the  general  sense  of  gi-acious  and  pro- 
vidential guidance.     (Compare  Ps.  Ixxiii.  24.)      Clericus  renders  it  feci 


ISAIAJT  LVJI.  [Vkr.  19,  20. 

(juiescere,  in  reference  to  the  rest  of  the  exiles  in  their  own  land.  This 
inteqiretation,  which  is  mentioned  although  not  approved  hv  Jarchi,  sup- 
poses an  arbitrary  change  at  least  of  vowels,  so  as  to  derive  the  word  from 
nii, — The  promise  to  restore  consolation  implies  not  onl}'  that  it  had  been 
once  enjoyed,  but  also  that  it  should  compensate  for  the  intervening  sorrows, 
as  the  Hebrew  word  means  properly  to  make  good,  or  indemnify. — The 
addition  of  the  words  ami  to  his  moui-ners  has  led  to  a  dispute  among  inter- 
preters, whether  the  writer  had  in  mind  two  distinct  classes  of  sufferers,  or 
only  one.  Cocceius  adopts  the  former  supposition,  and  assumes  a  distinc- 
tion in  the  church  itself.  Others  understand  by  hU  mourners  those  who 
mourned  for  him,  and  Henderson  applies  it  specifically  to  the  heathen 
proselvtes  who  sympathised  with  Israel  in  exile.  Hit/.ig  and  Knobel  under- 
stand the  1  as  meaning  and  especially,  because  those  who  sutfered  most 
were  most  in  need  of  consolation.  Perhaps  it  would  be  still  more  satis- 
factorv'  to  make  these  words  explanatory  of  the  v,  to  him,  t.  e.  to  his 
mourners.  Whether  these  were  but  a  part,  or  coextensive  with  the  whole, 
the  form  of  expression  then  leaves  undecided.  Luzzatto  gets  rid  of  the 
difficulty  by  connecting  these  words  with  the  next  verse,  "and  for  bis 
mourners  I  create,"  &c,  Koppe  throws  not  only  this  verse  and  the  next, 
but  also  the  one  following,  into  one  sentence,  making  this  the  expression 
of  a  wish,  and  the  next  a  continuation  of  it.  "  I  saw  his  ways,  and  would 
have  healed  him,  guided  him,  consoled  him  and  his  mourners,  creating, 
lie.  ;  but  the  wicked  are  like  the  troubled  sea,"  itc.  This  is  ingenious,  but 
too  artificial  and  refined  to  be  good  Hebrew.  Vitringa  sees  a  special  con- 
nection between  this  verse  and  the  supplication  of  the  Austrian  nobles  to 
the  Emperor  Ferdinand  in  1541. 

19.  Creritinff  the  fruit  of  the  lips.  Peace,  peace  to  the  far  off  and  to  tlie 
near,  saith  Jehovah,  and  I  heal  him.  Luz/.atto  adds  to  this  verse  the  con- 
cluding words  of  ver.  18,  "  and  for  his  mourners  I  create,"  &c.  This, 
besides  the  arbitrary  change  in  the  traditional  arrangement  of  the  text, 
requires  the  participle  ^*."?i3  to  be  taken  as  an  independent  verb,  which, 
although  a  possible  construction,  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity. 
The  usual  construction  connects  N."^i3  with  Jehovah  as  the  sultject  of  the 
foregoing  verse. — The  fruit  or  product  of  the  lips  is  speech,  and  creating, 
as  usual,  implies  almighty  power  and  a  new  effect.  Rosenmiiller  under- 
stands the  clause  to  mean  that  nothing  shall  bo  uttered  by  the  following 
proclamation,  "Peace,  peace,"  &c.  Gesenius  understands  by  the  fruit  of 
the  lips  praise  or  thanksgiving,  as  in  Heb.  xiii.  15,  and  Hosea  xiv.  8. 
Hitzig  supposes  it  to  mean  the  promise  which  Jehovah  had  given,  and 
would  certainly  fulfil. — By  the  far  and  near  Henderson  understands  the 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  (Compare  Acts  x.  86,  Kph.  ii.  17.)  Jarchi  and 
Knobel  explain  it  to  mean  all  the  Jews  wherever  scattered  (chap,  xliii.  5-7, 
xlix.  12).  The  Targum  makes  tlie  distinction  an  internal  one, — the  just 
who  have  kept  the  law,  and  sinners  who  have  returned  to  it  by  sincere  re- 
pentance. Kimchi  in  like  manner  understands  the  words  as  abolishing  all 
difference  between  the  earlier  and  later  converts,  nn  idea  similar  to  that 
embodied  in  our  Saviour's  parable  of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard.  Hitzig 
directs  attention  to  the  way  in  which  the  writer  here  comes  back  to  the 
beginning  of  ver.  18,  as  an  observable  rhetorical  beauty. — The  present 
form  is  used  above  in  the  translation  of  the  last  verb,  because  it  is  doubtful 
whetlur  the  Vav  has  a  conversive  influence  when  separated  so  fur  from  the 
futures  of  the  foregoing  verse. 

20.  And  the  nicked  [arc)  like  the  troubled  sea,  for  rest  it  cannot,  and  its 


Yer.  21.]  ISAIAH  LVII.  353 

waters  cast  up  mire  and  dirt.  Koppe's  unnatural  construction  of  this  verse 
as  the  apodosis  of  a  sentence  beginning  in  ver.  18  has  ah-eady  been  refuted. 
Interpreters  are  commonly  agreed  in  making  it  a  necessary  limitation  of  the 
foregoing  promise  to  its  projjer  objects.  Hitzig  regards  it  as  a  mere  intro- 
duction to  the  next  verse.  There  is  a  force  in  the  original  which  cannot 
be  retained  in  a  translation,  arising  from  the  etymological  affinity  between 
the  words  translated  wicked,  troubled,  and  cast  up.  Among  the  various 
epithets  applied  to  sinners,  the  one  here  used  is  that  which  originally 
signifies  their  turbulence  or  restlessness.  (See  Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  ii.  1.) 
Henderson's  strange  version  of  the  first  clause  {as  for  the  wicked  they  are 
each  tossed  about  like  the  sea  wJiich  cannot  rest)  seems  to  be  founded  upon 
some  mistaken  view  of  the  construction,  and  is  certainly  not  worth  pur- 
chasing by  a  violation  of  the  accents. — Hendewerk's  version  of  the  clause 
is  peculiar  only  in  the  use  of  the  indefinite  expression  a  sea.  Gesenius  in 
his  Lexicon  makes  this  one  of  the  cases  in  which  *?  retains  its  original 
meaning  as  a  relative  pronoun,  like  the  troubled  sea  which  cannot  rest.  The 
English  Version  and  some  others  take  it  as  a  particle  of  time  [when  it  can- 
not rest).  All  the  latest  German  writers  follow  Lowth  in  giving  it  its  usual 
sense  of /or  because.  The  only  objection  to  this  version,  that  it  appears  to 
make  the  sea  itself  the  subject  of  comparison,  Knobel  ingeniously  removes 
by  adding,  "  any  more  than  you  can."  The  futm-e  form  *?3'l^  implies  that 
such  will  be  the  case  hereafter  as  it  has  been  heretofore,  which  is  sufficiently 
expressed  by  the  reference  to  futurity  in  our  verb  can.  The  Vav  conversive 
prefixed  to  the  last  verb  merely  shews  its  dependence  on  the  one  before  it, 
as  an  effect  upon  its  cause,  or  a  consequent  upon  its  antecedent.  Its 
waters  cannot  rest,  and  (so  or  therefore)  they  cast  up  mire  and  mud. 
Lowth's  version  of  this  last  clause  is  more  than  usually  plain  and  vigorous : 
its  waters  work  up  mire  and  filth.  The  verb  means  strictly  to  expel  or 
drive  out,  and  is  therefore  happily  descriptive  of  the  natural  process  here 
referred  to.  There  seems  to  be  allusion  to  this  verse  in  the  x6/zaTa  ay^ia, 
^aXdacyi;  of  Jude  13.  Most  of  the  later  writers  have  repeated  the  fuie 
parallel  which  Clericus  quotes  from  Ovid : 

Cumque  sit  hibernis  agitatura  fluctibus  tequor, 
Pectora  sunt  ipso  turbidiora  marl. 

21.  There  is  no  peace,  saith  my  God,  to  the  wicked,  Gesenius  has /or 
ike  zuickecl,  i.  e.  in  reserve  for  them.  Ewald  follows  Luther  in  exchanging 
the  oriental  for  an  occidental  idiom,  the  wicked  have  no  peace,  which,  although 
perfectly  correct  in  sense,  is  an  enfeebling  deviation  from  the  Hebrew  col- 
location and  construction.  That  peace  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its  strict 
sense,  and  not  in  that  of  welfare  or  prosperity,  is  clear  from  the  comparison 
in  the  preceding  verse.  Twenty-two  manuscripts  assimilate  this  verse  to 
chap,  xlviii.  22  by  reading  Hjn^.  for  ''>P^..  The  Alexandrian  text  of  the 
Septuagint  combines  both  readings,  xo^iog  6  ^iog.  So  too  Jerome  has  Do- 
mimts  Deus,  which  Grotius  thinks  ought  to  be  read  Dominus  mens,  not 
observing  that  the  form  of  expression  would  still  be  different  from  that  of 
the  original.  It  is  somewhat  surprising  that  the  "  higher  criticism  '"  has 
not  detected  in  this  repetition  a  marginal  gloss,  or  the  assimilating  hand  of 
some  redactor.  But  even  Hitzig  zealously  contends,  without  an  adversary, 
that  the  verse  is  genuine  both  here  and  in  chap,  xlviii.  22,  and  that  its 
studied  repetition  proves  the  unity  and  chronological  arrangement  of  the 
whole  book.     The  only  wonder  is  that  in  a  hundred  cases  more  or  less 

VOL.  II.  z 


354  ISAIAH  LVIII.  [Yeh.  1,  2. 

analogous,  the  same  kind  of  reasoning  is  rejected  as  beneath  refutation. 
This  verse,  according  to  the  theon-  of  Hiickert,  Hitzig,  and  Havcrnick. 
closes  the  second  great  division  of  the  Later  Prophecies.  For  the  true 
sense  of  the  words  themselves,  see  above,  on  chap,  xlviii.  22. 

CHAPTER  LYIII. 

The  rejection  of  I.srael  as  a  nation  is  the  just  reward  of  their  unfaithful- 
ness, vtr.  1.  Their  religious  services  are  hypocritical,  ver.  2.  Their 
mortifications  and  austerities  are  nullified  by  accompanying  wickedness, 
vers.  3-5.  They  should  have  been  connected  with  the  opposite  virtues, 
vers.  6,  7.  In  that  case  they  would  have  continued  to  enjoy  the  divine 
favour,  vers.  8,  0.  They  arc  still  invited  to  make  trial  of  this  course,  with 
an  ample  promise  of  prosperity  and  blessing  to  encourage  them,  vers.  10-1 1. 

1.  Cry  with  the  throat,  spare  not,  like  the  trumpet  raine  thy  voice,  and 
idt  to  my  pjenple  their  transgression  ami  to  the  house  of  Jacob  their  sins. 
Allhouj^h  this  may  be  conveniently  assigned  as  the  beginning  of  the  third 
pnrt.  nc.  nrding  to  the  theory  propounded  in  the  Introduction,  it  is  really, 
ti  1  well  observes,  a  direct  continuation  of  the  previous  discourse, 
i.  suggestion  that  the  latter  may  have  produced  some  eflect  upon  the 
people  belbre  this  was  uttered,  rests  on  a  supposition  which  has  probably 
no  foundation  in  fact.  The  utmost  that  can  be  conceded  is  that  the 
Prophet,  after  a  brief  pause,  recommences  his  discourse  precisely  at  the 
point  where  he  suspended  it. — The  object  of  address  is  the  Prophet  him- 
self, as  expressed  in  the  Targum,  and  by  Saadias  (he  said  to  me).  That 
he  is  h«'re  viewed  as  the  representative  of  prophets  or  ministers  in  general, 
is  not  II  natural  or  necessary  inference.  Crying  with  the  throat  or  from 
the  lungs  is  here  opposed  to  a  simple  motion  of  the  lips  and  tongue.  (See 
1  Sam.  i.  13.)  The  common  version  (cry  aloud)  is  therefore  substantially 
conect,  though  somewhat  vague.  The  Septuagint  in  like  manner  para- 
phrases it  iv  'ff;^u/'.  The  Vulgate  omits  it  altogether.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
reads,  as  luiid  as  thou  canst.  The  positive  command  is  enforced  by  the 
negative  one,  spare  not,  as  in  chap.  liv.  2.  The  comparison  with  a  trumpet 
is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Book  of  Ilevelations.  (See  e.  g.  i.  10, 
iv.  1.)  The  loudness  of  the  call  is  intended  to  suggest  the  importance  of 
the  subject,  and  perhaps  the  insensibility  of  those  to  be  convinced.  The 
Prophet  here  seems  to  turn  away  from  avowed  apostates  to  hypocritical 
professors  of  the  truth.  The  restriction  of  the  verse  to  Isaiah's  contim- 
poraries  by  the  rabbins,  Grotius,  and  Piscator,  and  to  the  Jews  of  the 
Babylonish  exile  by  Sanctius  and  the  modern  writei"s,  is  as  perfectly  gratu- 
itous as  its  restriction  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  to  the  Pharisees  of  Christ's 
time,  and  by  Vitringa  to  the  Protestant  Churches  at.  the  decline  of  the 
Ilefonnation.  The  points  of  similarity  with  all  or  any  of  these  periods 
arise  from  its  being  a  description  of  what  often  has  occurred  and  will  occur 
again.  It  was  important  that  a  phase  of  human  history  so  real  and  impor- 
tant should  form  a  jiart  of  this  prophetic  picture,  and  accordingly  it  has 
not  been  forgotten. 

2.  And  me  day  (hy)  day  they  will  seek,  and  the  knowledge  of  my  ways 
they  will  delight  in  (or  desire),  like  a  nation  trhich  has  done  right  and  the 
judgment  of  its  God  has  not  forsaken ;  thnj  xcill  wk  of  me  righteous  judg- 
ments, the  approach  to  God  [or  of  God)  they  will  delight  in  (or  desire).  The 
older  writers  take  this  U>  be  a  description  of  hypocrisy,  as  practised  in 
a  formal  seeking  (t.  e.  worshipping)  of  God,  and  a  professed  desiie  to  know 


Ver.  3.]  ISAIAH  LVIIl.  355 

his  ways  (i.  e.  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  true  religion),  the  external 
appearance  of  a  just  and  godly  people,  who  delight  in  nothing  more  than  in 
drawing  near  to  God  {i.e.  in  worship  and  communion  with  him).  Cocceius 
and  Yitringa,  while  they  diti'er  on  some  minor  questions,  e.  rj.  whether  seek- 
ing denotes  consultation  or  worship,  or  includes  them  both,  agree  as  to  the 
main  points  of  the  exposition  which  has  just  been  given.  But  Gesenius 
and  all  the  later  German  writers  j)ut  a  very  different  sense  upon  the  pas- 
sage. They  apply  it  not  to  hypocritical  formality,  but  to  a  discontented 
and  incredulous  impatience  of  delay  in  the  fultilment  of  God's  promises. 
According  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  seeking  God  daily,  means  importunate 
solicitation ;  delight  in  the  knowledge  of  his  ways,  is  eager  curiosity 
to  Icnow  his  providential  plans  and  purposes  ;  the  judgments  of  righteous- 
ness which  they  demand  are  either  saving  judgments  for  themselves,  or 
destroying  judgments  for  their  enemies ;  the  approach  which  they  desire 
is  not  their  own  approach  to  God,  but  his  approach  to  them  for  their  deli- 
verance; and  the  words  like  a  nation,  kc,  are  descriptive  not  of  a  simulated 
piety,  but  of  a  self-righteous  belief  that  by  their  outward  services  they  had 
acquired  a  meritorious  claim  to  the  divine  interposition  in  their  favour.  It 
is  somewhat  remarkable  that  a  sentence  of  such  length  should,  without  vio- 
lence, admit  of  two  interpretations  so  entirely  difierent,  and  the  wonder  is 
enhanced  by  the  fact  that  both  the  senses  may  be  reconciled  with  the  ensuing 
context.  The  only  arguments  which  seem  to  be  decisive  in  favour  of  the 
first,  are  its  superior  simplicity  and  the  greater  readiness  with  which  it  is 
suggested  to  most  readers  by  the  language  of  the  text  itself,  together  with 
the  fact  that  it  precludes  the  necessity  of  limiting  the  word  to  the  Baby- 
lonish exile,  for  which  limitation  there  is  no  ground  either  in  the  text  or 
context.  The  objection  to  the  modern  explanation,  founded  on  the  sense 
which  it  attaches  to  the  verb  fSn,  is  met  by  the  analogous  use  of  the  verb 
love  in  Ps.  xl.  17,  Ixx.  5 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  8. — Luther  understands  the  last 
clause  as  accusing  them  of  wishing  to  contend  with  God,  and  venturing  to 
charge  him  with  injustice. 

8.  Why  have  ive  farted  and  thou  hast  not  seen  {it),  afflicted  our  soul  (or 
'itirselves)  and  thou  wilt  not  know  {it).^  Behold,  in  the  day  of  your  fast  ye 
lu ill  find  fileasure,  and  all  your  labours  ye  loill  exact.  The  two  interpreta- 
tions which  have  been  propounded  of  the  foregoing  verse  agree  in  making 
this  a  particular  exemplification  of  the  people's  self-righteous  confidence  in 
the  meritorious  efficacy  of  their  outward  services.  The  first  clause  contains 
their  complaint,  and  the  last  the  Prophet's  answer.  This  relation  of  the 
clauses  Saadias  points  out  by  prefixing  to  one  the  words  "they  say,"  and 
and  to  the  other  "Prophet,  answer  them."'  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  suppose 
fasting  to  be  here  used  in  a  ^\^de  sense  for  the  whole  routine  of  ceremonial 
services.  The  same  end  is  attained  by  adhering  to  the  strict  sense,  but 
supposing  what  it  said  of  this  one  instance  to  be  applicable  to  the  others. 
The  structure  of  the  first  clause  is  like  that  in  chaps,  v.  4,  1.  2.  In  our 
idiom  the  idea  would  be  naturally  thus  expressed.  Why  dost  thou  not  see 
when  we  fast,  or  recognise  our  merit  when  we  mortify  ourselves  before 
thee  ?  The  word  t^'?.?  here  may  either  mean  the  appetite,  or  the  soul  as 
distinguished  from  the  body,  or  it  may  supply  the  place  of  the  reflexive 
pronoun  self,  which  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  because  the  context  shews 
that  their  mortifications  wex'e  not  of  a  spiritual  but  of  a  corporeal  nature. 
The  combination  of  the  preterite  {liast  not  seen)  and  the  future  [wilt  not 
know)  includes  all  time.  The  clause  describes  Jehovah  as  indifierent  and 
inattentive  to  their  laboured  austerities.     The  reason  given  is  analogous  to 


856  ^  ISAIAU  LVIIL  [VEn.  4. 

that  for  the  rejection  of  their  sacrifices  in  chap.  i.  11-18,  viz.  the  combina- 
tion of  their  formal  service  with  unhalluwed  practice.     The  precise  nature 
of  the  alleged  abuse  depends  upon  the  sense  of  the  word  V?n.     Gesenius 
and  most  later  writers  understand  it  to  mean  business,  as  in  chap.  xliv.  28, 
liii.  10,  and  explain  the  whole  clause  as  a  declaration,  that  on  days  set 
apart  for  fasting  they  were  accustomed  to  pursue  their  usual  employments, 
or  as  Henderson  expresses  it,  to  "attend  to  business."     But  this  explana- 
tion of  the  word,  as  we  have  seen  before,  is  perfectly  gratuitous.     If  we 
take  it  in  its  usual  and  proper  sense,  the  meaning  of  the  clause  is  that  they 
made  their  pretended  self-denial  a  means  or  an  occasion  of  sinful  gratitica- 
tion.     J.  1).  Michaelis  supposes  the  specific   pleasure  meant  to  be  that 
afforded  by  the  admiration  of  their  superior  goodness  by  the  people.     But 
this  is  a  needless  hmitatiou  of  the  language,  which  may  naturally  be  applied 
to  all  kinds   of  enjoyment,  inconsistent  v.ith   the   mortifying  humiliation 
which  is  inseparable  from  right  fasting. — The  remaining  member  of  the 
sentence  has  been  still  more  variously  explained.     According  to  the  Septua- 
gint  and  Vulgate,  it  charges  them  with  specially  oppressing  their  dependents 
{\jT,byji^i'j\j;  and  txihjedos)  at  such  times.     Luther  agrees  with  Symmachus 
in  supposing  a  particular  allusion  to  the  treatment  of  debtors.     Gesenius 
in  his  Commentan.-,  Umbreit,  and  De  Wette,  prefer  the  specific  sense  of 
labourers  or  workmen   forced  to   toil   on  fast-days   as  at  others   times. 
]\Iaurer,  Hitzig,  and  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus,  coincide  with  the  English 
Versidu  in  the  sense,  yc  exact  all  your  labours,  i.e.  all  the  labour  due  to 
you  from  your  dependents.     As  these  substitute  labours  for  labourers,  so 
the  Kabbius  debts  for  debtors.     Aben  P^zra  uses  the  expression  mai)imon, 
which  may  mean  your  guius  or  profits;  but  3^'y,  ns  Maurer  well  observes, 
does  not  signify  emolument  in  general,  but  hard-eanud  wages,  as  appears 
both  from  etymology  and  usage.     (See  Prov.  v.  10,  x.  22;  Ps.  cxxvii.  2.) 
J.  D.  IMichaelis  ingeniously  explains  the  clause  as  meaning  that  they  de- 
manded of  God  himself  a  reward  for  their  meritorious  services. — On  the 
stated  fasts  of  the  Old  Testament,  see  Jer.  xxxvi.  9,  Zech.  vii.  8,  viii.  19. 
According  to  Luzzatto,  D-li'  originally  signifies  the  convocation  of  the  people 
for  prayer  and  preaching;  so  that  when  Jezebel  required  a  fast  to  be  pro- 
claimed, Naboth  was  set  on  high  among  the  people,  i.e.  preached  against 
idolatry,  on  which  pretext  he  was  nfterwards  accused  of  having  blasphemed 
God  and  the  king.     (1  Kings  xxi.  9-13.) 

4.  Behold,  for  drife  and  contention  ye  will  fast,  and  to  smite  icith  the  fist 
of  wicledness ;  yc  shall  not  (or  yc  will  not)  fast  to-day  (so  ns)  to  mahe  your 
voice  heard  un  hiyh.  Some  understnud  this  as  a  further  reason  why  their 
fasts  wore  not  accei)table  to  God;  others  suppose  the  same  to  be  continued, 
and  refer  what  is  here  said  to  the  maltreatment  of  the  labourers  or  debtors 
mentioned  in  the  verse  preceding.  Gesenius  understands  the  7  in  the  first 
clause  as  expressive  merely  of  an  accompanying  circumstance,  ye  fast  uith 
strife  and  quarrel.  But  Maurer  and  the  later  writers,  more  consistently 
with  usage,  understand  it  as  denoting  the  efi'ect,  eillur  simjjly  so  consi- 
dered, or  as  the  end  deliberately  aimed  at.  J.  D.  Michaelis  tells  a  story  of 
a  lady  who  was  never  known  to  scold  her  servants  so  severely  as  on  fast 
days,  which  he  says  agrees  well  with  physiological  jirinciples  and  facts  ! 
Viiringa  applies  this  clause  to  the  doctrinal  divisions  among  Protestants, 
and  more  particularly  to  the  controversies  in  the  Church  of  Holland  on  the 
subject  of  grace  and  predestination.  To  smite  with  tlie  fist  of  wickedness 
is  a  periphrasis  for  fighting,  no  doubt  borrowed  from  the  provision  of  the 
law  in  Exod.  xxi.  18.— Luther  and  other  carlv  vtritcrs  understand  the  last 


Yer.  5,  6.]  ISAIAH  LVIII.  357 

clause  as  a  prohibition  of  noisy  quarrels,  to  make  the  voice  heard  on  high, 
being  taken  as  equivalent  to  letting  it  be  heard  in  the  street  (chap.  xlii.  3). 
Vitringa  and  the  later  writers  give  it  a  meaning  altogether  different,  by 
taking  dv^O  in  the  sense  of  heaven  (chap.  Ivii.  15),  and  the  whole  clause 
as  a  declaration  that  such  fasting  would  not  have  the  desired  effect  of  gain- 
ing audience  and  acceptance  for  their  prayers.  (See  Joel  i.  14,  ii.  12).  All 
the  modern  writers  make  Q1*3  synonymous  with  DI^H  to-day,  as  in  1  Ivings 
i.  31.  Jarchi's  explanation,  asthedai/,  (ought  to  be  kept)  involves  a  harsh 
ellipsis  and  is  contrary  to  usage. — Instead  of  N**?  Vti^l^Lowth  reads  v  HD  ?]}  ^in, 
and  translates  "  to  smite  with  the  fist  the  poor;  wherefore  fast  ye  unto  me 
in  this  manner?"  The  only  authority  for  this  pretended  emendation  is  the 
-rccTrsivov  ivari  jmi  of  the  Septuagiut  Version,  and  the  strange  idea  that  it 
"  gives  a  much  better  sense  than  the  present  reading  of  the  Hebrew." 

5.  Shall  it  he  like  this,  the  fast  that  I  ivill  choose,  the  day  of  mail's  hum- 
hling  himself?  Is  it  to  hang  his  head  like  a  bulrush  and  make  sackcloth  and 
ashes  his  bed?  Wilt  tliou  call  this  a  fast,  and  a  day  of  acceptance  (an  accept- 
able day)  to  Jehovah?  The  general  meaning  of  this  verse  is  clear,  although 
its  structm-e  and  particular  expressions  are  marked  with  a  strong  idiomatic 
peculiarity  which  makes  exact  translation  very  difficult.  The  interrogative 
form,  as  in  many  other  cases,  implies  strong  negation  mingled  with  sur- 
prise. Nothing  is  gained,  but  something  lost,  by  dropping  the  future  forms 
of  the  first  clause.  The  preterite  translation  of  "IH^N  (/  have  chosen)  is  in 
fact  quite  uugrammatical.  No  less  gratuitous  is  the  explanation  of  this 
verb  as  meaning  love  by  Gesenius,  and  appwve  by  Henderson  ;  neither  of 
which  ideas  is  expressed,  although  both  are  really  implied  in  the  exact 
translation,  choose.  The  second  member  of  the  first  clause  is  not  part  of 
the  contemptuous  description  of  a  mere  external  fast,  but  belongs  to  the 
definition  of  a  true  one,  as  a  time  for  men  to  practise  self-humiliation.  He 
does  not  ask  whether  the  fast  which  he  chooses  is  a  day  for  a  man  to  afllict 
himself  implying  that  it  is  not,  which  would  be  destructive  of  the  very 
essence  of  a  fast ;  but  he  asks  whether  the  fast  which  he  has  chosen  as  a 
time  for  men  to  humble  and  afflict  themselves  is  such  as  this,  i.  e.  a  mere 
external  self-abasement. — V^l  means  to  spread  anything  under  one  for  him 
to  lie  upon,  (See  above,  chap.  xiv.  11.)  The  efiect  of  fasting,  as  an  outward 
means  and  token  of  sincere  humiliation,  may  be  learned  from  the  case  of 
Ahab  (1  Kings  xxi.  27-29)  and  the  Niuevites  (Jonah  iii.  5-9.)  The  use 
of  sackcloth  and  ashes  in  connection  with  fasting  is  recorded  in  Esther 
ix.  3.  Even  Gesenius  regards  this  general  description  as  particularly  ap- 
plicable to  the  abuse  of  fasting  in  the  Romish  and  the  Oriental  Churches. 
The  sense  attached  to  Di^  by  Luther  (c/es  Tages)  and  Lowth  (/or  a  day) 
changes  the  meaning  of  the  clause  by  an  arbitrary  violation  of  the  syntax. 

6.  Is  not  this  the  fast  that  I  will  choose,  to  loosen  bands  of  tcickedness,  to 
undo  the  fastenings  of  the  yoke,  and  to  send  away  the  crushed  (or  broken)  free, 
ttnd  every  yoke  ye  shall  break  ?  Most  interpreters  suppose  a  particular  allu- 
sion to  the  detention  of  Hebrew  servants  after  the  seventh  year,  contrary  to 
the  express  provisions  of  the  law  (Exod.  xxi.  2,  Lev.  xxv.  39,  Deut.  xv.  12). 
Grotius  applies  the  terms  in  a  figurative  sense  to  judicial  oppression ;  Coc- 
ceius  to  impositions  on  the  conscience  (Mat.  xxiii.  4,  Acts  xv.  28,  Gal.  v.  1) ; 
Vitringa,  still  more  generally,  to  human  domination  in  the  church  (1  Cor. 
vii.  23),  with  special  reference  to  the  arbitrary  impositions  of  formulas  and 
creeds.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  terms  were  so  selected  as  to  be 
descriptive  of  oppression  universally ;  to  make  which  still  more  evident, 
the  Prophet  adds  a  general  command  or  exhortation,  Ye  shall  break  every 


858  ISAlAJf  LVIII.  [Ver.  7. 

yoke.  The  Targum  explains  npiD  to  mean  unjust  decrees  ('t3DD  pT  '3^3), 
and  the  Septuagint  applies  it  to  fraudulent  contracts,  an  idea  which  Gese- 
nius  thinks  was  probably  supfjested  to  the  translator  by  his  knowledge  of 
the  habits  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews.  Hitzig  agi'ces  with  Jnrcbi  in  deriving 
the  first  nipiD  from  noj  and  making  it  synonymous  with  HtSD  (Ezek.  ix.  9), 
the  perversion  of  justice.  (For  this  nj.plication  of  the  verb,  see  above, 
chaps,  xxix.  21,  xxx.  11).  But  although  this  atibrds  a  more  perfect  paral- 
lelism witli  yt,*n,  it  is  dearly  purchased  by  assuming  that  the  same  form 
nipiD  is  here  used  in  two  entirely  difl'erent  senses.  For  the  use  of  VV? 
in  refertnco  to  oppression,  see  1  Sam.  xii.  3,  4,  and  compare  Isa.  xlii.  3. 
Gesenius  here  repeats  his  unwarrantable  mistranslation  of  ^^H  as  synon}  - 
mous  with  ^^t\,  lu  this  he  is  followed  by  Hitzig  ;  but  the  later  writers 
have  the  good  taste  to  prefer  the  strict  translation.  The  change  of  con- 
struction in  the  last  clause  from  the  infinitive  to  the  future,  is  so  couimon 
as  to  be  entitled  to  consideration,  not  as  a  solecism  1  ut  as  a  Hebrew  idiom. 
There  is  no  need  therefore  of  adopting  the  indirect  and  foreign  construc- 
tion, that  ye  break  every  yfJce. — In  reply  to  the  question,  how  the  acts  here 
mentioned  could  be  described  as  fasting,  J.  1).  Michaelis  says  that  they  are 
all  to  be  considered  as  involving  acts  of  conscientious  self-deninl,  which  he 
illustrates  by  the  case  of  an  American  slaveholder  brought  by  stress  of  con- 
science to  emancipate  his  slaves.  The  principle  is  stated  still  more  clearly 
and  more  generally  by  Augustine,  in  a  passage  which  Gesenius  quotes  in 
illustration  of  the  verse  before  us.  "Jejunium  magnum  et  generale  est 
abstinere  ab  iniquitatibus  et  illicitis  voluptatibus  soculi,  quod  est  perfectum 
jejunium."  Hendewerk  understands  this  passage  of  Isaiah  as  expressly  con- 
demning and  proliil  i;ing  all  fosts,  but  the  other  Germans  still  maintain  the 
old  opinion  that  it  merely  shews  the  spirit  which  is  necessary  to  a  true  fast. 
7.  Is  it  not  to  break  nnto  the  htivgry  thy  bread,  and  the  ojftiefed,  the  home- 
less, thou  shalt  briny  home;  for  thou  shalt  see  one  naked  and  shalt  elothe  him, 
and  from  thine  own  flenh  thou  shalt  not  hide  thysdf  The  change  of  con- 
struction to  the  future  in  the  first  clause  is  precisely  the  same  as  in  the 
preceding  verse. — Grotius  explains  the  phrase  to  Inealc  bread  (meaning  to 
distribute)  from  the  oriental  practice  of  baking  bread  in  thin  flat  cakes. — 
Lowth's  version  of  the  next  phrase  {the  tcanderiny  poor)  is  now  commonly 
regarded  as  substnntially  correct.  (Compare  Job  xv.  23.)  Dn-lip  is  pro- 
perly an  abstract,  meaning  uaridcrim;  (from  "111;,  here  used  for  the  coLcreto 
expression  wanderers.  There  is  no  need  of  explaining  it  with  Henderson  as 
an  ellipsis  for  Dnnp  ^v!'^^i!  men  of  wanderings.  The  essential  idea  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  Sejjtuagint  version  {dsTfyoug),  \\hich  Ewald  copies  (Ihchlose), 
and  still  more  exactly  in  the  Vulgate  (vayos).  Jarchi  explains  it  to  mean 
mourniny,  by  metathesis  for  D'T'^'O,  a  passive  particijjle  from  I?).  Hitzig 
derives  it  from  *irip,  to  rebel,  but  gives  it  the  specific  sense  of  fugitive 
rebels.  2'hcu  shall  bring  home,  i.  e.  as  Knobel  underi-tands  it,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  feeding  tin  ni  ;  but  this  is  a  gi-atuitous  restriction. — The  construc- 
tion of  the  second  clau.se  is  similar  to  that  in  ver.  2.  It  is  best  to  retain 
the  form  of  the  original,  not  only  upon  general  grounds,  but  because  thou 
shall  see  the  naked  seems  to  be  a  substantive  command,  corresponding  to  thou 
shalt  vol  hide  thyself. — For  the  use  of  flesh  to  signify  near  kindred,  see  Gen. 
xxix.  14,  xxxvii.  27,  2  Sam.  v.  1.  The  Septuagint  paraphrase  is,  ac&  tu¥ 
vix.fiojv  rot  arri^fiarii  acv. — "With  the  general  precepts  of  the  verse  compare 
chap,  xxxii.  (5,  Job  xxxi.  lG-22,  Exod.  xviii.  7,  Prov.  xxii.  9,  Ps.  cxii.  9, 
Matt.  XXV.  86,  Horn.  xii.  11,  Heb.  xiii.  2,  Jamts  ii.  15,  IG,  and  with  the 
last  clause,  Matt.  xv.  5,  G. 


Ver.  8,  9.]  ISAIAH  LVllI.  359 

8.  Then  shall  break  forth  as  the  dawn  thy  light,  and  thy  healing  speedily 
shall  sj)ring  up  ;  then  shall  go  hefore  thee  thy  righteousness,  and  the  glory  of 
Jehovah  shall  be  thy  rereward  (or  bring  up  thy  rear).  Kimclii  connects 
this  with  the  foregoing  context  by  supplying  as  an  intermediate  thought, 
thou  slialt  no  longer  need  to  fast  or  lie  in  sackcloth  and  ashes.  It  is  evi- 
dent, however,  that  the  writer  has  entirely  lost  sight  of  the  particular 
example  upon  which  he  had  been  dwelling  so  minutely,  and  is  now  entirely 
occupied  with  the  eflects  which  would  arise  from  a  confcn'mity  to  God's  will, 
not  in  reference  to  fasting  merely,  but  to  every  other  part  of  duty.  Then, 
i.  e.  when  this  cordial  compliance  shall  have  taken  place.  The  future  form 
is  preferable  here  to  the  conditional  {looidd  break  forth),  not  only  as  more 
obvious  and  exact,  but  as  implying  that  it  will  be  so  in  point  of  fact,  that 
the  effect  will  certainly  take  place,  because  the  previous  condition  will  bo 
certainly  complied  with.  The  verb,  to  break  forth  (literally,  to  be  cleft), 
elsewhere  applied  to  the  hatching  of  eggs  (chap.  lix.  5),  and  the  gushing 
of  water  (chap.  xxxv.  6),  is  here  used  in  reference  to  the  dawn  or  break  of 
day,  a  common  figure  for  relief  succeeding  deep  affliction.  (See  chap.  viii.  22, 
xlvii.  11,  Ix.  1.) — nD-1"l5^  is  properly  a  bandage,  but  has  here  the  sense  of 
healing,  as  in  Jer.  viii.  22,  xxx.  17,  xxxiii.  6.  By  a  mixture  of  metaphors, 
■which  docs  not  in  the  least  obscure  the  sense,  this  healing  is  here  said  to 
sprout  or  germinate,  a  figure  employed  elsewhere  to  denote  the  sudden, 
rapid,  and  spontaneous  growth  or  rise  of  anything.  (See  above,  on  chaps, 
xlii.  9,  and  xliii.  19.)  In  the  last  clause  a  third  distinct  figure  is  employed 
to  express  the  same  idea,  viz.  that  of  a  march  like  the  journey  through  the 
wilderness,  Avith  the  pillar  of  cloud,  as  the  symbol  of  God's  presence,  going 
before  and  after.  (See  above,  on  chap.  Hi.  12,  and  compare  Exod.  xiii.  21, 
xiv.  19.) — Thy  righteousness  shall  go  bfore  thee  cannot  mean  that  righteous- 
ness shall  be  exacted  as  a  previous  condition,  which  is  wholly  out  of  keep- 
ing with  the  figurative  character  of  the  description.  Luther  has  also  marred 
it  b}'  translating  the  last  verb,  shall  take  thee  to  himself,  overlooking  its 
peculiar  military  sense,  for  which  see  above,  on  chap.  lii.  12.  Knobel  im- 
proves upon  Gesenius's  gi-atuituous  assumption  that  P"3y  means  salvation, 
by  explaining  it  in  this  case  as  an  abstra'ct  used  for  the  concrete,  and  ac- 
cordingly translating  it  thy  Saviour.  xVU  the  advantages  of  this  interpreta- 
tion are  secured  without  the  slightest  violence  to  usage,  by  supposing  that 
Jehovah  here  assumes  the  conduct  of  his  people,  as  their  righteousness  or 
justifier.  (See  Jer.  xxiii.  G,  xxxiii.  IG,  and  compare  Isaiah  liv.  17.)  The 
parallel  term  glory  may  then  be  understood  as  denoting  the  manifested  glory 
of  Jehovah,  or  Jehovah  himself  in  glorious  epiphany  ;  just  as  his  presence 
with  his  people  in  the  wilderness  was  manifested  by  the  pillar  of  cloud  and 
of  fire,  which  sometimes  went  before  them,  and  at  other  times  brought  up 
up  their  rear.  (See  above,  on  chap.  lii.  12.)  This  grand  reiteration  of  a 
glorious  promise  is  gratuitously  weakened  and  belittled  by  restricting  it  to 
the  return  of  the  exiled  Jews  from  Babylon  ;  which,  although  one  remark- 
able example  of  the  thing  described,  has  no  more  claim  to  be  regarded  as 
the  whole  of  it,  than  the  deliverance  of  Paul  or  Peter  from  imprisonment 
exhausted  Christ's  engagement  to  be  with  his  servants  always,  (;ven  to  the 
end  of  the  world. 

9.  Then  shall  thou  call  and  Jehovah  will  answer,  thou  shall  cry  and  he  will 
say.  Behold  me  (here  I  am),  if  thou  wilt  put  away  from  the  micht  of  thee  the 
yoke,  the  piointiny  of  the  finger,  and  the  >ipcaking  of  vanity.  The  tX  may 
either  be  connected  with  what  goes  before  or  correspond  to  D^!^  in  the  other 
clause,  like  then,  lohen,  in  English.     That  D!S  may  thus  be  used  as  a  particle 


300  ISAIAH  LVI II.  [Veb.  10,  11. 

of  time,  will  be  seen  by  comparing  chaps,  iv.  4,  xxiv.  13.  The  conditional 
form  of  the  promise  implies  that  it  was  not  so  with  them  now,  of  which, 
indeed,  they  are  themselves  represented  as  complaining  in  ver.  3.  The 
idea  of  this  verse  might  be  expressed  in  the  occidL-ntal  idiom  by  saying, 
when  thou  callest,  Jehovah  will  ayiswer ;  when  thou  criest,  he  will  say,  Behold 
me.  (See  above,  on  chap.  1.  2.) — The  yoke  is  again  mentioned  as  the 
symbol  of  oppression.  (See  ver.  G.)  De  Wette  needlessly  resolves  it  into 
snbjugation  (Untcrjochumj),  Hendewerk,  still  more  boldly,  into  slavery. — 
The  pointing  of  the  finger  is  a  gesture  of  derision.  Hence  the  middle  linger 
is  called  by  Persius  digitus  in/amis ;  Martial  saj-s,  rideto  nmlttttn,  and  in 
the  same  connection,  dirjituin  porrigito  medium  ;  Plautus,  in  reference  to 
an  object  of  derision,  intend e dig itinn  in  hunc.  The  Arabs  have  a  verb  de- 
rived from  finger,  and  denoting  scornful  ridicule.  The  object  of  contempt 
in  this  case  is  supposed  by  Grotius  to  be  the  pious  ;  by  Hitzig,  the  Prophet 
or  Jehovah  himself ;  by  Knobel,  the  unfortunate,  who  are  afterwards 
described  as  objects  of  sympathy. — Words  of  vanity,  in  Zech.  x.  £,  mean 
falsehood,  which  is  hero  retained  by  J.  I).  Miehaelis,  while  l)athe  gives  it 
the  specific  sense  of  slander,  and  Paulus  that  of  secret  and  malignant 
machination.  Vitringa  understands  it  as  relating  to  censorious  and  un- 
necessary fault-finding  ;  Kimchi,  Ewald,  and  Gesenius,  to  strife  and  bicker- 
ings. All  these  may  be  included  in  the  general  sense  of  evil  speech  or 
wicked  words.  The  Targum  has  words  of  oppression,  or,  as  Gesenius  ex- 
plains it,  violence. 

10.  And  {{/)  thou  iciJt  let  out  thy  soul  to  the  hungry,  and  the  aJfUcted  soul 
wilt  satisfy,  then  shall  thy  light  arise  in  the  darkness,  and  thy  gluom  as  the 
{douUc  light  or)  noon.  For  T-'3  Lowth  reads  "lOn?  tUy  bread,  in  which  he 
is  supported  by  eight  manuscripts.  The  Septuagint  version  he  considers 
as  combining  the  two  readings.  But  Vitringa  understands  ix.  -^dx/iS  as 
denoting  the  cordiality  of  a  cheerful  giver  (2  Cor.  ix.  7,  Rom.  xii.  8.) 
Luzzatto,  by  means  of  a  curious  etymolsgical  analogy,  makes  p'?J?  synony- 
mous with  the  N'VOn  of  Lev.  ix.  12.  13,  18,  and  translates  the  whole  phrase 
"  if  th(ni  wilt  present  thy  person."  Gesenius  takes  t'??.  in  the  sense  of 
appetite  or  hunger,  here  put  for  the  thing  desired  or  enjoyed  (deinen  liisseir.) 
Hitzig  and  Ewald,  with  the  same  view  of  the  writer's  meaning,  retain  the 
more  exact  sense  of  desire  in  their  translations.  Hendewerk's  explanation, 
"  if  thou  wilt  turn  thy  heart  to  the  hungry-,'"  is  near  akin  to  Luther's,  "  if 
thou  wilt  let  the  huncry  find  thy  heart,"  which  seems  to  rest  upon  tho 
same  interpretation  <»f  the  verb  that  has  been  quoted  from  Luzzatto.  liy 
a  distressed  soul,  Hitzig  here  understands  one  sutlering  from  want,  and 
craving  sustenance.  (See  chap.  xxix.  8.)  The  figure  iu  the  last  clause  is 
a  common  one  for  happiness  succeeding  sorrow.  (See  Judges  v.  31,  Ps. 
cxii.  4,  Job  xi.  17.)  Vitringa  asserts  roundly  (ain  rotunde)  that  this  pro- 
phecy was  not  fulfilled  until  after  the  lleformation,  when  so  many  German, 
French,  Italian,  and  Hungarian  Protestants  were  forced  to  seek  refuge  in 
other  countries.  The  true  sense  of  the  passage  he  has  given  without  know- 
ing it,  in  these  words  :  •'  Post  tot  bcneficia  et  stricturas  lucis  ccclesiae  in- 
ductas,  restat  meridit-a  quern  expectat." 

1 1.  And  Jehorah  trill  guide  thee  ever,  and  satisfy  thy  said  in  drought,  and 
thy  bones  shall  he  invigorate,  and  thou  shall  be  like  a  watered  garden,  and  like 
a  spring  of  water,  irhose  waters  shall  not  fail.  The  jtnnnisc  of  guidance 
had  already  been  given  in  chap.  Ivii.  18.  (Compare  Ps.  Ixxiii.  21,  Ixxviii. 
14.)  Jerome's  translation  (rei/niein  tihi  dabit)  derives  the  verb  from  013. 
not  'in?.     Driessen  and  some  others  make  ninvnV3  mean  with  clear  or 


Ver.  12.]  I8AIAU  LVIII.  361 

brif,'ht  waters  ;  but  the  sense  of  glistening  or  dazzling  which  belongs  to  the 
Arabic  root,  is  equally  applicable  to  the  burning  sands  of  a  desert.  Ewald 
translates  it  fever-heat.  The  common  version,  dimKjIit,  which  Lowth 
changes  to  severest  dr(»ii/lit,  in  order  to  express  the  intensive  meaning  of  the 
plural  form,  agrees  well  wilh  the  verb  to  ^^citisfy,  referring  to  thirst,  as  ver.  10 
docs  to  hunger.  The  common  version  of  the  next  clause  {and  viake  fat 
lliij  bones)  is  sanctioned  by  the  Septuagint  and  Kimchi,  who  appeals  to 
the  analogy  of  Prov.  xv.  30.  The  Vulgate  version  [ossa  liberahit)  seems 
both  arbitrary'  and  uumeaniug.  The  Peshito  and  Saadias  translate  the 
verb  will  strenytJtev,  which  is  adopted  by  most  modern  \\Titers.  Seeker's 
emendation  (^7^-  ^PPV3|),  which  Lowth  adopts  {renew  thy  strength),  de- 
rives some  countenance,  not  only  from  the  Targum,  but  from  the  analogy 
of  chaps,  xl.  31,  and  xli.  1,  and  is  only  inadmissible  because  it  is  gratuitous. 
Similar  allusions  to  the  bones  as  the  seat  of  strength  occur  in  Ps.  li.  10, 
and  Job  xxi.  24.  The  figure  in  the  last  clause  is  the  converse  of  that  in 
chap.  i.  30.  There  is  here  a  climax.  Not  content  with  the  image  of  a 
well-watered  garden,  he  substitutes  that  of  the  stream,  or  rather  of  the 
spring  itself.  The  general  idea  is  a  favourite  with  Isaiah.  (See  above, 
chaps,  -xxx.  25,  xxxiii.  21,  xxxv.  5,  7,  xh.  17,  xliii.  20,  xliv.  4,  xlviii. 
21,  xlix.  10.)  On  the  deceiving  of  the  waters,  see  Jer.  xv.  18,  and  com- 
pare the  analogous  expressions  of  Hosea  with  respect  to  wine,  and  of  Hab- 
bakkuk  with  respect  to  oil.  (Hosea  v.  2,  Hab.  iii.  17.)  Hitzig  and 
Knobel  understand  what  is  here  said  of  heat  and  drought  in  literal  appli- 
cation to  the  journey  of  the  exiles  through  the  wilderness,  while  all  the 
analogous  expressions  in  the  context  are  regarded  as  strong  figures.  The 
truth  is,  that  the  exodus  from  Egypt  had  already  made  these  images  familiar 
and  appropriate  to  any  great  deliverance. 

12.  And  tlmi  shall  build  from  thee  the  ruins  of  antiquity  {or  perpetuity), 
foundations  and  of  age  and  aye  {i.  e.  of  ayes)  shalt  thou  raise  up  ;  and  it  shall^ 
be  ealled  to  thee  (or  thou  shalt  he  eafled)  Repairer  of  the  breach,  Restorer  of 
paths  for  duelliny.  Ewald  reads  -"133,  they  shall  be  built  by  thee  ;  but  this 
passive  form  does  not  occur  elsewhere,  and  is  here  sustained  by  no  exter- 
nal evidence.  Kimchi  understands  -133  as  referring,  not  to  persons,  but 
efi'ects  {opera),  which  is  very  unnatural.  Hitzig  retains  the  old  interpreta- 
tion of  the  clause  as  referring  to  children  or  descendants  ;  and  the  latter 
WTiter  gives  it  a  specific  application  to  the  younger  race  of  exiles,  whom 
he  supposes  to  be  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  these  Later  Prophecies. 
Gesenius  denies  the  reference  to  children,  and  explains  ^PP  as  meaning 
those  belonging  to  thee,  or,  as  he  paraphrases  it,  thy  people.  The  simplest 
supposition  is  that  of  some  rabbinical  writers,  who  supply  as  the  subject 
of  the  verb  its  correlative  noun,  builders.  But  as  I'fP  properly  means 
from  thee,  it  denotes  something  more  than  mere  connection,  and,  unless 
forbidden  by  something  in  the  context,  must  be  taken  to  signify  a  going 
forth  from  Israel  into  other  lands.  Thus  understood,  the  clause  agrees 
exactly  with  the  work  assigned  to  Israel  in  chaps,  xliii.  14,  and  Ivii.  11, 
viz.  that  of  reclaiming  the  apostate  nations,  and  building  the  wastes  of  a 
desolated  world.  As  u7\V  obviously  refers  to  past  time,  this  is  the  only 
natural  interpretation  of  the  corresponding  phrase,  "lil)  11"^  ;  although 
Luthor  and  others  understand  the  latter  as  referring  to  foundations  which 
shall  last  for  ever.  Gesenius  understands  by  foundations,  buildings  razed 
to  their  foundations  (Ps.  cxxxvii.  7)  ;  and  Hitzig  supposes  it  to  have 
the  secondary  sense  of  ruins,  like  D^i^'^Ii'X  in  chap.  xvi.  7.  The  sense 
will  then  be,  if  refen-ed  to  past  time,  foiindations  which  have  lain  bare, 


802  ISAIAH  L  \  III.  [Veb.  13. 

or  buildiugs  whose  foundations  have  been  bare,  for  ages.  For  the  meta- 
phor, compare  Amos  ix.  1 1  ;  for  that  of  u  bighwav,  chaps,  xix.  23,  xxxv. 
8  ;  and  for  that  of  the  breach.  Ezek.  xiii.  o,  xxii.  30.  The  addition  of 
the  hist  phrase,  J^S^'f'f  l'^*'^  perplexed  interpreters.  Coceeius  understands 
it  to  mean  that  the  paths  themselves  shall  be  inhabited.  Clcsenius  arbi- 
trarily translates  it,  in  the  inhabited  land.  Knobel  no  less  gratuitously  gives 
to  paths  the  sense  of  beaten  or  frequented  regions.  Jerome  and  Grotius 
make  the  word  a  derivative  from  ^DtJ',  and  translate  it  ///  fjnietem,  or  ad 
qnii'scendiim.  The  most  satiHlactory  hypotheses  are  tlione  of  Hitzig  and 
Maurer,  the  former  of  whom  makes  the  phrase  mean  ad  habilonduvi  sc. 
terrain,  that  the  land  may  be  inhabited.  The  latter  understands  the 
paths  to  be  described  as  leading,  not  to  ruins  and  to  deserts  as  be- 
fore, but  to  inhabited  regions.  Of  these,  the  former  seems  entitled  to 
the  preference.  It  will  bo  sufficient  to  record  the  fact,  that  Vitringa 
finds  in  this  verse  an  allusion  to  fundamental  doctrines,  canons,  formulas, 
&c.,  &c. 

13.  //"  tJiou  tvilt  turn  atvaij  thy  foot  from  the  Sabbath  to  do  thij  plea- 
sure on  my  holy  day,  and  nilt  call  the  Sabbath  a  deliyht,  {and)  the  holy 
{day)  of  Jehovah  honourable,  and  wilt  honour  it  by  not  doiny  thy  oun  tcayx, 
hy  not  fmdiny  thy  pleasure  and  tallciny  talk.  The  version  of  Ilendei'son 
and  others,  turn  away  thy  foot  on  the  Sabbath,  is  inconsistent  with  the 
form  of  the  original  as  well  as  with  the  figure,  which  is  that  of  something 
trodden  down  and  trampled,  or  at  least  encroached  npon.  Most  inter- 
preters agree  with  Kimchi  in  supplying  IP  before  niw'^,  a  combination 
which  is  actually  found  in  one  manuscript.  Hitzig  supposes  that  the  gram- 
matical effect  of  the  first  \Q  extends  to  this  infinitive.  Maurer  sujiplies 
nothing,  and  translates  ut  ayas.  The  modern  version  of  ]*?n  {^business)  is 
much  less  natural,  even  in  this  connection,  than  the  old  one,  thy  jtlensnrr, 
especially  as  paraphrased  by  Luther,  uliat  thou  tvilt  [was  dir  gefiiUt).  Hit- 
zig observes  a  climax  in  the  requisitions  of  this  clause,  not  unlike  that  in 
Prov.  ii.  2-4.  The  mere  outward  observance  was  of  no  avail,  unless  the 
institution  were  regarded  with  reverence,  as  of  God  ;  nay  more  with  compla- 
cency, as  in  itself  delightful.    To  call  it  a  delight,  is  to  acknowledge  it  as  such. 

The  ^  before  t'ilp  appears  to  interrupt  the  construction,  which  has  led  some 
interpreters^  to  disregard  it  altogether,  and  others  to  take  ^'y^P  as  a  verb,  or  an 
adjective  agreeing  with  Jehovah  ;  honoured  in  order  to  sanctify  (or  glorify) 
Jehovah — honoured  by  the  santification  of  Jehovah — honoured  for  the 
sake  of  the  Holy  One,  Jehovah.  But  the  simplest  explanation  is  the  one 
l)roposed  by  De  Pieu  and  adopted  by  Vitringa,  which  treats  the  7  before 
ri3l*',  and  that  before  ''^"'p,  as  correlatives,  alike  connecting  the  verb  N^i? 
with  its  object.  As  the  construction  of  the  verb  is  foreign  froin  our  idiom, 
it  may  be  best  explained  by  a  paraphrase  :  "  If  thou  wilt  give  to  the  Sab- 
bath (nat*'?)  the  name  of  a  delight,  and  to  the  holy  {^'y^?':')  day  or  ordi- 
nance of  Jehovah  that  of  honourable."  But  mere  acknowledgment  is  not 
enough  ;  it  must  not  only  be  admitted  to  deserve  honour,  but  in  fact 
receive  it.  Hence  be  adds,  and  if  thon  wilt  honour  it  thyself,  hy  not  doiny, 
literally,  away  from  doing,  so  as  not  to  do.  (On  this  use  of  IP,  sec  chaps, 
v.  0,  xlix,  15),  Hero  again,  to  find  one's  jilea-'ure  on  the  Sabbath  is  more 
natural  than  to  find  one's  husinesx.  Doing  thy  own  ways,  although  not  a 
usual  combination,  is  rendered  intelligible  by  the  constant  use  of  uny  in 
Hebrew  to  denote  a  course  of  conduct.  Speaking  speech  or  talking  talk  is 
by  some  regarded  as  equivalent  to  speaking  vanity,  in  ver.  D.     The  Scptua- 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAH  LIX.  803 

gint  adds  sv  d^yfi.  The  modern  writers,  for  the  most  part,  are  iu  favour  of 
the  explanation',  speaking  mere  words,  idle  talk.  (Compare  Mat.  xii.  36.) 
The  classical  parallels  adduced  hy  Clericus,  Gesenius,  and  others,  are  very 
little  to  the  purpose.  As  to  the  importance  here  attached  to  the  Sabhath, 
see  above,  on  chap.  Ivi.  2. 

14.  T/wH  shdt  thou  he  happy  in  Jehovah,  and  I  icill  make  thee  ride  upon 
the  heights  of  the  earth,  and  I  icill  mal-e  thee  cat  the  heritage  of  Jacob  thy 
father',  for  Jehovalis  mouth  hath  spoken  it.  The  verb  J3ynn  is  combined 
wiLh  the  divine  name  elsewhere  to  express  both  a  duty  and  a  privilege. 
(Compare  Ps.  xxxvii.  4,  with  Job  xxii.  20,  xxvii.  10.— "'J71??";l^l  does  not 
mean  I  will  raise  thee  above  (Jerome),  or  I  will  cause  thee  to  sit  (Cocceius), 
but  I  will  cause  thee  to  ride.  The  whole  phrase  is  descriptive,  not  of  a  mere 
retm-n  to  Palestine  the  highest  of  all  lauds  (Kimchi),  nore  of  mere  security 
from  enemies  by  being  placed  beyond  their  reach  (Vitringa),  but  of  conquest 
and  triumphant  possession,  as  in  Deut.  xxxii.  13,  from  which  the  expres- 
sion is  derived  by  all  the  later  writ'.n-s  who  employ  it.  There  is  no  suffi- 
cient ground  for  Knobel's  supposition  that  r\)02  in  this  phrase  means  tho 
fortresses  erected  upon  hills  and  mountains.  To  eat  the  heritage  is  to  enjoy 
it  and  derive  subsistence  from  it.  Kimchi  correctly  says  that  it  is  called 
the  heritage  of  Jacob  as  distinct  from  that  of  Ishmael  and  Esau,  although 
equally  descended  from  the  Father  of  the  Faithfal. — The  last  clause  is 
added  to  ensure  the  certainty  of  the  event,  as  resting  not  on  human  but 
divine  authority.     See  chap.  i.  2. 


CHAPTER   LIX. 

The  fault  of  Israel's  rejection  is  not  in  the  Lord,  but  in  themselves,  vers. 
1,  2.  They  are  charged  Avith  sins  of  violence  and  injustice,  vers.  3,  4. 
The  ruinous  effects  of  these  corruptions  are  described,  vers.  5,  6.  Their 
violence  and  injustice  are  as  fatal  to  themselves  as  to  others,  vers.  7,  8. 
The  moral  condition  of  the  people  is  described  as  one  of  darkness  and  hope- 
less degradation,  vers.  9-15.  In  this  extremity  Jehovah  interposes  to 
deliver  the  true  Israel,  vers.  16,  17.  This  can  only  be  effected  by  the  de- 
struction of  the  carnal  Israel,  ver.  18.  The  divine  presence  shall  no  longer 
be  subjected  to  local  restrictions,  ver.  19.  A  redeemer  shall  appear  in  Zion  to 
save  the  true  Israel,  ver.  20.  The  old  temporary  dispensation  shall  give  place 
to  the  dispensation  of  the  Word  and  Spirit,  which  shall  last  for  ever,  ver.  21. 

1.  Behold,  not  shortened  is  JehovaNs  hand  from  saving,  and  not  henumhcd 
is  his  ear  from  hearing,  i.  c.  so  as  not  to  save,  and  not  to  hear,  or  too  short 
to  save,  too  dull  to  hear.  On  this  use  of  the  preposition,  see  above  on 
chap.  Iviii.  13,  and  the  references  there  made.  The  Prophet  merely  pauses, 
as  it  were,  for  a  moment,  to  exonerate  bis  Master  from  all  blame,  before 
continuing  his  accusation  of  the  people.  The  beginning  of  a  chapter  hero 
is  simply  a  matter  of  convenience,  as  the  following  context  has  precisely  tho 
same  character  with  that  before  it ;  unless  Ave  assume  with  Lowth  that  the 
Prophet  now  ascends  from  particulars  to  generals,  or  with  J.  D.  Miohaelis, 
that  he  here  descends  to  a  lower  depth  of  wickedness.  The  only  explana- 
tion of  the  passage  which  allows  it  to  speak  for  itself,  without  gratuitous 
additions  or  embellishments,  is  that  which  likens  it  to  chap.  xlii.  18-25, 
xliii.  22-28,  and  1.  1,  2,  as  a  solemn  exhibition  of  the  truth  that  the  rejec- 
tion of  God's  ancient  people  was  the  fruit  of  their  own  sin,  and  not  to  be 
imputed  either  to  unfaithfulness  on  his  part,  or  to  want  of  strength  or 


864  ISAIAII  LIX.  [Ver.  2,  3. 

wisdom  to  protect  them.  For  tlie  trne  sense  of  ilie  metaphor  here  used, 
see  above,  on  cliap.  1.  2.  Hendcwerk  is  under  the  necessity  of  grantin{» 
that  the  Israel  of  this  passage  is  a  moral,  t.  e.  an  ideal  person,  correspond- 
ing not  to  any  ditinite  portion  of  the  people  at  any  one  time,  but  to  such 
of  them  at  various  times  as  possessed  a  certain  character.  Whatever  may 
be  thought  of  the  necessity  or  grounds  of  this  assumption  in  the  case  before 
us,  he  has  no  right  to  deny  the  possibility  of  others  like  it,  even  where  he 
does  not  think  them  requisite  himself.  I  lane  vcniam  jietinmstjiic  dammque 
vicissim. 

2.  JUit  ijonr  iniquities  have  been  separnliinj  letu em  you  and  your  God,  and 
your  sins  have  hid  (his)  face  from  you,  so  as  not  to  hear.  DK  ^3  is  the  usual 
adversative  after  a  negation,  corresponding  to  the  German  sondrni,  which 
has  no  distinct  equivalent  in  English.  Ewald's  version,  rather  {viehnehr), 
seems  to  weaken  the  expression  ;  and  Umbreit's  combination  of  the  two 
[so)idrrn  lu'hnehr)  is  entirely  gratuitous. — The  present  form  given  to  the 
verb  {they  separate)  by  Luther,  and  retained  even  by  De  Wette,  is  entirely 
inadequate.  The  original  expression  is  intended  to  convey,  in  the  strongest 
manner,  the  idea  both  of  past  time  and  of  continuauco  or  custom.  Ewald 
expresses  this  by  introducing  the  word  bisJanft,  but  Umbreit  better  by  re- 
taining the  exact  form  of  the  original  {waren  scheidend).  Hitzig  points  out 
an  allusion  to  the  ?"'"?I?P  ^H''  of  Gen.  i.  (5,  which  is  the  more  remarkable 
because  it  may  be  likewise  traced  in  the  construction  of  the  preposition  P3, 
both  the  modes  of  employing  it  which  there  occur  being  here  combined. — 
The  general  idea  of  this  verse  is  otherwise  expressed  in  Jer.  v.  25,  while 
in  Lam.  iii.  44,  the  same  Prophet  reproduces  both  the  thought  and  the  ex- 
pression, with  a  distinct  mention  of  the  intervening  object  as  a  cloud,  which 
may  possibly  have  been  suggested  by  the  language  of  Isaiah  himself  in 
chap.  xliv.  22. — Henderson  adopts  the  explanation  of  ^T^lpn  by  Kimchi 
and  Aben  Exra  as  a  causative  (have  made  him  hide)  ;  but  this  is  contrary  to 
uf^age. — Seeker  proposes  to  read  *JS  my  (face),  and  Lowth  v:d  (his  face), 
for  which  he  cites  the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions  ;  but  in  these,  as  in 
the  modem  ones,  the  pronoun  is  supplied  by  the  translator,  in  order  to 
remove  an  ellipsis  which  is  certainly  unusual,  though  not  without  example, 
as  appears  from  Job  xxxiv.  2!),  where  the  noun  without  a  suthx  is  combined 
with  this  very  verb.  For  an  instance  of  the  same  kind,  though  not  per- 
fectly identical,  see  above,  chap.  liii.  8.  The  omission  of  the  pronoun  is 
bo  far  from  being  wholly  anomalous  that  Luther  simply  has  the  faee,  in 
which  he  is  followed  both  by  Ewald  and  I'ndireit. — The  force  of  the 
participle  before  the  last  verb  is  the  same  as  in  chaps,  xliv,  IH,  and  xlix.  15. 
It  does  not  mean  specifically  that  he  uill  not,  much  less  that  he  cannot 
hear,  but,  as  Lowth  translates  it,  that  he  doth  not  heir.  It  is  still  better, 
however,  to  retain  the  intinitive  form  of  the  original  by  rendering  it,  so  as 
not  to  hear, 

8.  For  your  hands  are  defiled  nith  Idond,  and  your  finyert  uilh  iniquity ; 
your  lifts  have  sp(d,eii  falsehood,  your  tonyiie  ivill  utter  trichrdness.  The 
Prophet  now,  according  to  a  common  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  classifies 
the  prevalent  iniquities  as  sins  of  the  hands,  the  moutli,  the  feet,  as  if  to 
intimate  that  every  number  of  the  social  body  was  affected.  On  the 
staining  of  the  hands  with  blood,  see  chap.  i.  lo.  Hi-re  again  we  have 
a  marked  and  apparmtly  unstiidit'd  siniilarity  of  thought  and  language  to 
the  genuine  Isaiah.  The  form  7X33.,  which  occurs  only  lure  and  in  Lam. 
iv.  14,  is  explained  by  Kimchi  as  a  mixture  of  the  Niphal  and  Pual,  by 
Gcsenius  as  a  kind  of  double  passive.     The  use  of  tlys  form,  instead  of 


Veu.  4.] 


ISAIAH  LIX.  305 


the  Pual,  which  is  found  only  in  the  hitest  books,  is  rather  symptomatic  of 
an  earher  writer.     The  sense  here  put  upon  ^^h  and  in  a  few  other  places, 
seems  so  wholly  unconnected  with  its  usual  and  proper  meaning,  as  to  give 
some  countenance  to  Henderson's  idea,  which  might  otherwise  seem  fanci- 
ful   that  it  is  a  denominative  from  %i,  the  avenger  of  blood.— Yitringa 
infers  from  ver.  7,  that  the  blood  here  meant  is  specifically  that  of  the 
innocent,    or  those   unjustly  put  to   death.      According  to   Grotius,   the 
iniquity  which  stained  their  lingers  was  that  of  robbery  and  theft.     It  is 
far  more  natural,  however,  to  consider  hands  and  fingers  as  equivalent  ex- 
pressions, or  at  the  utmost  as  expressing  different  degrees  of  the  same  thing. 
Thus  Umbreit  represents  it  as  characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament  seventy 
in  reprehending  sin,  that  the  Prophet,  not  content  with  staining  the  liands, 
extends  his  description  to  the  very  fingers.     This  is  certainly  ingenious, 
but  perhaps  too  artificial  to  have  been  intended  by  the  writer.— The  re- 
striction of  the  falsehood  here  charged  to  judicial  fraud  or  misrepresentation 
is  unnecessary.— The  preterite  and  future  forms  describe  the  evil  as  habitual, 
and  ou'Tht  to'be  retained  in  the  translation,  were  it  only  for  the  purpose  of 
exhibilhig  the  characteristic  form  of  the  original.— The  last  verb  is  explained 
by  Yitrin^a  as  expressive  of  deliberate  promulgation  {meditate  profert),  and 
by  Luthe"  of  invention  {dichtet).     J.  D.  Michaelis  attenuates  its  sense  to 
that  of  simple  speech,  while  Hitzig  coincides  with  the  English  Yersion 
(muttered).     As  the  word,  though  applied  to  vocal  utterance,  is  not  con- 
fined to  articulate  speech,  the  nearest  equivalent  perhaps  is  utter,  as  con- 
veying neither  more  nor  less  than  the  original.— Yitringa  applies  this  verse 
likewfse  to  the  scandals  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  especially  to  those 
arisincT  from  its  coale.scence  with  the  State,  observing  that  the  inter]n-eter 
is  not°bound  to  verifv  the  truth  of  the  description,  as  we  know  not  what 'is 
yet  to  happen.     This  would  be  rational  enough  where  the  prophecy  itself 
contained  explicit  indications  of  a  specific  subject ;  but  where  this  is  to  be 
made  out  by  comparison  with  history,  a  reference  to  future  possibilities  is 
lau'diable.- The  wider  meaning  of  the  whole  description  is  evident  from 
Paul's  combining  parts  of  it  with  phrases  drawn  from  several  Psalms  re- 
markably resembling  it,  in  proof  of  the  depravity  of  human  nature  (Rom. 

iii.  15-17). 

4.   lliere  is  none  caliin;/  ivilh  jmtice,  and  there  is  none  contcndinff  ivitli 
trnth  ;  they  trust  in  ranitij  and  speak  falsehood,  conceive  mischief  and  hrintf 
forth' inujnitij.       The   phrase   P^IV?  5J?ip  has  been    variously  understood. 
The  Septuagint  makes  it  mean  simply  speaking  just  things  {oudslg  XaXiT 
biy.aia)  which   would  hardly  have  been  so  expressed  in  Hebrew.      The 
ChaUlee  paraphras'^  praying  in  truth  {i.e.  sincerely),  seems  to  be  founded 
on  the  frequent  description  of  worship,  as  calUng  on  the  name  of  God. 
Jerome's  version,  qui  invocet  justitiam,  is  followed  in  the  English  Bible, 
caUith  for  justice,  i.e.  as  Clericus  explains  it,  there  is  no  one  who  is  willing 
to  commit  his  cause  to  such  unrighteous  judges.     Hensler  and  Doderlein 
apply  it  to  judicial  decrees  and  decisions,  which  is  wholly  at  variance  with 
the  'usa<'e   of  the   verb.      Kimchi   understands  it  of   one   person  calling 
to  anotlfer  for  the  purpose  of  reproving  him ;  but  then  the  essential  idea 
is   the   very   one   which   happens   not    to    be   expressed.       Gcsenius    and 
Manror  follow  Rosenmiiller  in  attaching  to  S^P  the  forensic  sense  of  -/.aXiuj 
ii;  bly.riv  and  voco  in  jus  :    "No  one  summons   another,   i.e.   sues  him, 
ju'stly."     In  proof  of  such  a  Hebrew  usage  Knobel  cites  Job  v.  1,  xiii.  22, 
which  are  at  best  very  doubtful.     The  same  sense  seems  to  be  designed  by 
Lowth  {preferreth  his  suit).     It  would  be  still  more  difficult  to  justify  the 


366  IS  ALU  I  1.1  X.  [Veb.  6. 

sense  of  speakint/  fur  or  advocating,  here  assumed  by  J.  P.  Micbaelis  and 
Henderson.  In  this  uncertainly,  some  of  the  latest  wrilcis  have  gouo  back 
to  Luther's  sense  of  fm/c/i /////.  which  is  lasiiy  dcducible  from  that  of  call- 
ing publicly,  proclaiming.  According  to  Hit/.ig,  this  is  the  proper  Hebrew 
term  for  pubHc  speaking,  such  as  that  in  the  synagogues,  which  was  free  to 
all.  (See  Luke  iv.  10,  Acts  xiii.  15.)  Lulht-r  makes  righteousness  the 
subject  of  the  preaching,  Ewald  imd  Umbrcit  a  description  of  its  quality 
(ariifht  or  justhf).  The  only  argument  against  this  explanation,  and  in 
favour  of  a  more  forensic  or  judicial  one,  is  that  afforded  by  the  parallel  ex- 
pression, J^JI^^^?  t;B'y'3.  Kimchi  makes  the  verb  a  simple  passive,  meaning 
to  be  tried  or  judged — '*  no  one  is  fairly  tried."  Luther  and  J.  D.  Michaehs 
reverse  this  explanation,  and  apply  the  chiuse  to  unjust  judges.  Most 
wTiters  make  the  verb  reciprocal  (as  in  chap,  xliii.  20,  Prov.  xxix.  U,  E/.ek. 
xui.  20),  and  apply  it  either  to  forensic  litigation,  or  to  controversy  and 
contention  for  the  truth.  In  either  case  n?"IO^  must  mean  bona  fides,  and 
not  truth  as  the  subject  or  occasion  of  dispute,  which  is  not  the  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew  word.  (See  Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  xxxiii.  4.)  The  infinitive 
construction  of  the  next  clause  cannot  be  retained  in  English.  The  nearest 
equivalent  is  that  adopted  in  the  common  version.  Lowth's  substitution 
of  the  participle  {tnistiii;i,  speaking,  &c.)  is  no  better  as  to  form,  and  really 
obscures  the  sense,  or  at  least  the  true  grammatical  relation  of  the  clauses. 
The  construction  is  the  same  as  in  chap.  v.  '>,  xxi.  9.  Vitiinga  supposes 
an  ellipsis  of  the  preterite,  which  is  inadmissible,  for  reasons  given  in  vol. 
i.  p.  130.— inri  is  vigorously  rendered  by  J.  D.  Michaehs  nothimj  (auf  ein 
Nichts).  The  falsehood  mentioned  in  this  clause  is  understt)od  by  some  in 
the  specitic  sense  of  false  or  unfair  reasoning.— With  the  figure  of  the  last 
clause  compare  Job  xv.  85,  and  Ps.  vii.  15.  It  might  here  be  understood 
to  denote  mere  disappointment  or  failure,  as  in  ver.  13  below  ;  but  the 
analogv  of  chap,  xxxiii.  11  seems  to  shew  thut  the  prominent  idea  is  that 
of  mischievous  and  spiteful  machination.  With  the  first  of  these  interpre- 
tations seems  to  be  connected  the  sense  which  J.  D.  Miehaelis  here  attaches 
to  P.K,  namely,  that  of  pain  or  sufl'ering. 

5.' Jv/^»  of  the  basilisk  they  have  hatched,  and  wels  of  (he  spider  they 
will  spin  (or  toeuve) ;  the  [one)  eating  of  their  eggs  shall  die,  and  (he 
crushed  {egg)  shall  hatch  out  a  viper.  The  figure  of  the  serpent  is  sub- 
slanliallv  the  same  as  in  chap.  xiv.  29.  (Compare  Dcut.  xxxii.  88).  Tho 
precise  varieties  intended  are  of  little  exegetical  importance.  Tho  modem 
writers  generally  follow  Bochart  in  explaining  '3ypv  to  mean  the  basilisk,  a 
serpent  small  in  size  but  of  a  deadly  venom.  Fcr  the  use  of  the  verb  in 
such  connections,  see  above,  chap,  xxxiv.  15.  The  figure  of  the  spider's 
web  is  added  to  express  tho  idea  both  of  hurtfulness  Jiud  futility.  (Seo 
Job  viii.  14.)—  "^l^^^T  for  HT-n  (like  nj"?  for  n3?  /ech.  v.  4)  is  tho  pa.ssivo 
participle  of  "Vlt  to  press,  applied  in  chap.  i.  4  to  the  curative  compression 
of  a  wound.  That  it  does  not  here  denote  incubation,  as  explained  by 
Aquila  (^aX^iliv),  Jerome  {eonfotum),  and  Jarchi,  may  be  inferred  from  Job 
xxxix.  15.  where  the  same  verb  is  applied  to  the  crushing  of  the  eggs  of 
the  ostrich  bv  tho  foot.— Luther,  Lowth,  J.  D.  Miehaelis,  and  Gesenius 
make  n>1in  a  nominative  absolute,  "  if  one  is  cnished  there  .-reeps  out  a 
^-iper."  Maurer  and  tho  later  writers  construe  it  directly  with  the  verb,  as 
in  the  English  liible.— To  tho  objection  that  tho  viper  is  viviparous, 
Vitringa  answers,  that  tho  Prophet  intentionally  uses  a  mixed  metaphor; 
Gesenius,  that  we  cannot  look  for  accurate  details  of  natural  history  in 
such  a  -writer.     Neither  seems  to  have  observed  that  the  exact  correspond- 


Vee.  G-8.J  ISAIAH  LIX.  3G7 

enee  of  the  Hebrew  word  to  viper  is  cxtromoly  problematical,  although 
Geseiiiiis  himself  defines  it  in  his  Lexicon  "viper,  [i^der,  any  poisonous 
serpent,"  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  accordingly  translates  it  by  the  general  term 
sclilanfjf.  The  same  writer  looks  upon  the  whole  verse  as  peculiarly  appro- 
priate to  the  character  and  condition  of  the  Jews,  immediately  before  their 
destruction  by  the  Romans. 

6.  Their  uehs  shall  not  become  (or  be  for)  clothing,  and  they  shall  not 
cover  themselves  with  their  works  ;  their  works  are  works  of  mischief  (or 
iniquity),  and  the  doing  cf  violence  is  in  their  hands.  The  first  clause  does 
not  seem  to  foi'm  a  part  of  what  the  writer  meant  at  first  to  say,  but  is  a 
kind  of  afterthought,  by  which  he  gives  a  new  turn  to  the  sentence,  and 
expresses  an  additional  idea  without  a  change  of  metaphor.  Having  intro- 
duced the  spider's  web,  in  connection  with  the  serpent's  egg,  as  an  emblem 
of  malignant  and  treacherous  designs,  he  here  repeats  the  first  but  for 
another  purpose,  namely,  to  suggest  the  idea  of  futihty  and  worthlessness. 
This  application  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  frequent  reference  to 
webs  and  weaving  as  conducive  to  the  comfort  and  emolument  of  men  ; 
but  spiders'  webs  can  answer  no  such  purpose.  The  idea  that  it  is  not  fit 
or  cannot  be  applied  to  this  end,  although  not  exclusively  expressed,  is 
really  included  iia  the  general  declaration  that  they  shall  not  be  so  used. — 
Gcsenius  and  Ewald  make  the  second  verb  indefinite,  they  shall  not  (i.  e. 
no  one  shall)  employ  them  for  this  purpose.  But  the  sentence  is  more 
pointed  if  we  understand  it  as  including  a  specific  menace  that  the  authors 
of  these  devices  shall  derive  no  advantage  from  them.  Works  in  the  first 
clause  simply  means  what  they  have  made  ;  but  in  the  second,  where  tho 
metaphor  is  dropped,  this  version  would  be  inadmissible.  The  common 
version  of  "?V2  {act),  and  Lowth's  emendation  of  it  {deed),  are  both  defective 
in  not  suggesting  the  idea  of  continued  and  habitual  practice. 

7.  Their  feet  to  evil  will  run,  and  they  vill  hasten  to  shed  innocent  blood  ; 
their  thoughts  are  thoughts  of  mischief  {ox  iniquity);  wasting  and  ruin  are  in 
their  paths.  The  fi^rst  clause  expresses  not  a  mere  disposition,  but  an  eager 
proclivity  to  wrong.  The  word  translated  thoughts,  has  here  and  elsewhere 
the  specific  sense  of  purposes,  contrivances,  devices,  which  last  Lowth 
employs  as  an  e(puvalcnt.  Luther  gives  \)^  here  as  well  as  in  the  foregoing 
verse  the  sense  of  trouble  {Miihe),  in  reference  no  doubt  to  the  oppressors 
themselves.  In  like  manner  J.  D.  MichaeHs  explains  ruin  in  their  paths  as 
meaning  that  it  awaits  themselves  ;  but  most  interpreters  take  both  expres- 
sions in  an  active  sense,  as  meaning  what  they  do  to  others,  not  what  they 
experience  themselves.  Their  paths  are  then  the  paths  in  which  their  feet 
run  to  evil  and  make  haste  to  shed  innocent  blood. — The  two  nouns  com- 
bined in  the  last  clause  strictly  denote  desolation  and  crushing,  /.  e.  utter 
ruin.  Destruction  and  calamity  (Lowth)  are  as  much  too  vague  as  destruc- 
tion and  Hounds  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  or  force  and  ruins  (Ewald),  are  too 
specific.  Ivnobel  supposes  the  idea  to  be  that  of  a  couutiy  wasted  by 
invading  enemies.  (See  chap.  i.  4.)  With  this  verse  compare  Prov.  i.  16, 
and  the  evil  way,  of  chap.  Iv.  7  above.  Knobel  of  course  applies  it  to  the 
quarrelsome  exiles,  and  gravely  adds  that  nothing  more  can  be  determined 
with  respect  to  them  than  this,  that  they  sometimes  d'd  not  hesitate  to  rob 
and  murder  !  The  reference  which  he  adds  to  this  extraordinary  statement 
are  chaps.  Ivii.  20,  1.  11,  and  vers.  3  and  15  of  this  chapter. 

8.  The  way  of  peace  they  have  not  known,  and  there  is  no  justice  in  theiy 
paths  ;  their  courses  they  have  rendered  crooked  for  them  ;  every  one  walking 
in  them  knoivs  not  peace.     J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Umbreit  go  to  opposite 


8CS  ISAIAH  LIX.  [Yer.  9,  10. 

extremes  in  their  interpretation  of  the  first  clau.^e.  The  former  makes  the 
way  of  peace  denote  the  way  to  happiness  ;  the  latter  understands  the 
clause  to  mean  that  they  refuse  all  overtures  of  reconciliation.  The  obvious 
and  simple  meaning  is,  that  their  lives  are  not  pae'rio  hut  contentious. 
]n  order  to  vary  the  expression,  Lowth  translates  Cri7^V??3  in  tluir  tracks, 
which  is  retained  by  Henderson.  With  still  more  exact  adherence  to  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  verb,  they  might  have  MTitten  in  their  ruts.  CpV 
is  twice  used  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  as  the  o{«posite  of  upright  or  sincere. 
(Prov.  x.  9,  xxviii.  18.)  Hitzig  gives  the  verb  the  specific  sense  of  rhoosinif 
crooked  paths,  which  is  not  so  simple  or  exact  as  the  common  Euglisli 
Version  {lln'ij  lime  vunle  ihcm  craohcil  jxiths).  HS  is  a  neuter  or  indefinite 
expression.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  reading  either  Dn3*n3  with  a 
single  manuscript,  or  D3  with  the  ancient  versions,  between  which  emenda- 
tions Lowth  appears  to  hesitate.  Knobel's  inference  from  this  verse,  that 
Komo  of  the  less  corrupted  Jews  were  led  astrav  by  wickid  leaders,  is  as 
groundless  as  Vitringa's  specific  application  of  the  passage  to  the  excesses  of 
victorious  parties  in  religious  controversy,  not  without  evident  allusion  to 
the  ecclesiastical  disputes  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  to  which  he 
verj-  naturally,  but  by  no  means  ver}'  reasonably,  yields  an  extrava;;untly 
disproportioned  space,  in  determining  the  scope  of  this  prophetic  vision. 
The  erroneous  principle  involved  in  both  interpretations  is  refuted  by  the 
comprehensive  sense  which  the  apostle  puts  upon  the  worJs  in  the  passage 
which  bus  been  already  cited.     (Itoui.  iii.  lo-lT.) 

9.  I'lierrforr  is  judijment  far  from  us,  and  ri'jlitcousncss  will  not  overtake 
us;  we  wait  for  light  ami  hcJiold  darLness  ;  for  sjJeiidours,  [aiul]  in  obscu- 
rities ve  ualh.  The  future  lurm  of  all  the  verbs  in  this  verse  intimates 
that  they  expect  this  state  of  things  to  continue.  Knobel  explains  juili/iiunt 
as  meaning  the  practical  decision  between  them  and  their  enemies,  which 
God  would  make  when  he  delivered  them.  Why,  then,  may  not  the 
parallel  expression,  righteousness,  be  applied  in  the  same  way,  without 
losing  its  original  and  proper  sense  in  that  of  salvation  f  According  to 
Hendewerk,  it  here  denotes  the  righteous  compensation  which  the  Jews 
were  to  receive  for  their  excessive  sufierings.  (Sec  above,  on  chap.  xl.  2.) 
,f.  ]).  Michaelis  explains  the  expression  overtake  strictly,  as  denoting  that 
they  fled  from  it.  (Compare  chap.  xxxv.  10,  and  li.  11.)  Vitringa  applies 
this  verse  to  the  threatened  extinction  of  religion  in  his  own  day  ;  Knobel 
to  the  delay  in  the  deliverance  from  Babylon,  occasioned  by  Cyrus's  attack 
on  Cro  sus  ! 

10.  //V  ffropr  like  the  blind  for  the  nail,  like  the  eyelens  tee  (jrope ;  uc 
ntumhle  at  noonday  an  in  tiriliijht,  in  thick  darkness  like  the  dead.  Lowtli 
is  8o  otVeiided  with  the  "  poverty  and  inelegance"  of  repeating  ntfJJ,  which 
ho  thinks  *'  extremely  unworthy  of  the  Prophet,  and  nnlikf  his  manner," 
that  he  reads  in  the  second  place  with  llouligant,  n33L"3,  tee  wander,  can- 
didly adding  that  the  mistake,  although  very  ea.sy  and  obvious,  "  is  of  long 
standing,  being  prior  to  all  the  ancient  versions."  Whatever  else  may  be 
said  of  "  this  ingenious  correction,"  it  cannot  be  described  as  of  long  stand- 
ing ;  for  no  writer  since  Lowth  appears  to  have  adopted  it.  To  an  unso- 
phisticated taste  the  repetition  is  a  beauty,  when  used  sparingly  and  in  the 
proper  i)lace.  The  phrase  D'SPP'S^  has  been  variously  rendered.  Jerome, 
LutluT,  J.  D.  Michaeiis,  and  Riickert,  make  the  noun  mean  darkness  or 
dark  places  (j'n  caliginosis)  ;  tlio  Targum,  Saadia."*,  Kinirhi,  and  Grotius, 
j;i  the  tinnh:  which  sense  the  elder  Kimchi  derives  from  CL"N,  to  be  desolate. 
Lowth,  Koppe,  Dudurlciu,  and  liuuer,  iii  the  midst  of  fatness,  abundance, 


Ver.  11-14.]  IS  A!  ATI  LIX.  369 

or  fertility  ;  Gesenins,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  ami  Hendcwcrk,  in  fat  or  fertile 
fields ;  Abcn  Ezra,  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  in  the  midst  of  the 
fat  or  healthj',  with  or  without  allusion  to  the  prosperous  heathen  among 
whom  thoy  were  scattered,  or  by  whom  they  were  oppressed.  Ivnobel  has 
gone  back  to  the  moaning  chirkness,  as  best  suited  to  the  context,  and 
easily  deducible  from  the  sense  of  fatness,  just  as  we  speak  of  gross  or 
thick  darkness.  Vitringa  dissents  from  the  application  of  this  verse  by 
Cocceius  to  the  deposition  of  Ferdinand  king  of  Bohemia,  and  the  election 
of  Frederick  the  Count  Palatine  !  With  this  verse  compare  Deut.  xxviii. 
29,  and  Zeph.  i.  17. 

11.  H'e  groicl  U];e  the  Icarx,  all  of  us,  and  like  the  doves  tee  moan  {ive) 
moan;  ice  ica  it  for  justice  and  there  is  none,  for  salrafion  {and)  it  is  far  from 
us.  The  Latin  poets  also  speak  of  the  voice  of  bears  and  doves  as  a  f/emitus 
or  groaning.  (Sec  above,  chap,  xxxviii.  14,  and  Ezek.  vii.  16.)  Umbreit 
supposes  the  two  here  to  represent  the  extremes  of  violent  and  gentle  grief. 
The  same  ctiect  which  is  produced  in  the  first  clause,  by  the  use  of  the 
phrase  all  of  us,  is  produced  in  the  other  by  the  idiomatic  repetition  of  the 
verb.  Here,  as  in  ver.  9,  we  may  understand  by  judgment  or  justice  that 
which  God  does  by  his  providential  dispensations  both  to  his  people  and 
his  enemies. 

12.  For  our  transgressions  are  mxdtiplied  before  thee,  and  our  sins  testify 
acjainst  us;  for  our  transgressions  are  with  us,  and  our  iniquities — we  know 
them.  The  Prophet  here  begins  a  general  confession  in  the  name  of  God's 
people.  For  the  fonn  of  expression,  compare  Ps.  li.  5.  The  constniction 
of  the  verb  i^O^^  ^ith  a  plural  noun  is  explained  b}'  Tremellius  and  Vitringa 
as  implying  an  ellipsis  {(luodquc).  Cocceius  in  like  manner  supplies  id 
ipsuni.  The  modern  grammarians,  who  in  general  are  averse  to  the  gi'a- 
tuitous  assumption  of  ellipses,  seem  disposed  to  regard  it  as  an  idiomatic 
licence  of  construction.  Lowth  translates  •IJJ?^:^,  cleave  fast  unto  us;  but 
interpreters  generally  prefer  the  sense  expressed  in  the  English  Version 
(they  are  with  us,  i.  e.  in  our  sight  or  present  to  our  memory). 

1.'5.  To  trayisgress  and  lie  against  Jehovah,  arid  to  turn  hack  from  behind 
our  (hd,  to  speak  oppression  and  departure,  to  conceive  and  utter  from  the 
heart  words  of  falsehood.  The  specitications  of  the  general  charge  are  now 
expressed  by  an  unusual  succession  of  infinitives,  not  as  Hitzig  says  because 
the  persons  were  already  known  (which  would  require  the  adoption  of  the 
same  form  in  a  multitude  of  places  where  it  is  not  found  nt  present),  but 
because  the  writer  wished  to  concentrate  and  condense  his  accusation. 
This  rhetorical  eflect  is  materially  injured  by  the  substitution  of  the  finite 
verb.  Although  by  no  means  equal  in  conciseness  to  the  Hebrew,  our 
infinitive  may  be  employed  as  the  most  exact  translation.  Gcsenius  makes 
31D:  a  future  form,  but  Maurer  an  infinitive  from  3D3.  Dqiartuve  means 
departure  from  the  right  course  or  the  law  (Deut.  xix.  16),  i.  e.  transgi-cs- 
sion  or  iniquity.  Knobel  applies  the  term  specifically  to  idolatry,  and  under- 
stands P'^^li  as  implying  that  the  exiles  in  Babylon  oppressed  each  other ! 

14.  And  Judgment  is  thrust  (or  driven)  back,  and  righteousness  afar  off 
stands;  for  truth  has  fallen  in  the  street,  and  uprightness  cannot  enter.  The 
description  is  now  continued  in  the  ordinary  form  by  the  finite  verb. — The 
word  translated  street  properly  means  an  open  place  or  square,  especially 
the  space  about  the  gate  of  an  oriental  town  where  courts  were  held  and 
other  public  business  transacted.  (Sec  Job  xxix.  7,  Neh.  viii.  1.)  The 
present  form,  which  seems  to  be  required  by  oiu' idiom,  is  much  less  exprcs- 

VOL.  n.  A  a 


870  ISAIAH  LIX.  [Vkr.  15,  16. 

sivc  than  the  preterite  and  futures  of  the  orij,'inal.  Those  interpreters 
who  commonly  apply  whatever  is  said  of  t\Taiiny  to  the  oppression  of  the 
Jews  iu  exile  are  compelled  in  this  case,  where  the  sin  is  charged  upon  the 
Jews  themselves,  to  resort  to  the  imaginary  fact  of  gross  misgovernment 
among  the  exiles,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  conclusion  that  the  passage 
has  respect  to  a  condition  of  society  like  that  descrihed  in  the  first  chapter. 

15.  Then  truth  nan  miued  [i.e.  found  wanting;),  and  whoso  departed 
from  evil  made  himnelf  a  prey  (ur  was  plundered).      Then  Jehovah  sair  and  it 

wax  evil  in  his  eyes  that  there  wax  no  judgment  (or  pructit-al  justicu).  Tho 
Vav  conversi\e  in  both  claunes  indicates  a  sequence  of  events,  and  may  be 
best  expressed  by  then  in  English.  The  passive  participle  is  here  used 
with  the  substantive  verb,  as  the  active  is  in  ver.  2,  to  denote  anterior 
habitual  action.  Hitzig  understands  ,the  first  clause  to  mean  that  honesty 
(t.  e.  the  honest  people)  was  betrayed,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  usage 
both  of  the  noun  nud  verb  iu  Hebrew.  For  the  sense  of  "liyj,  see  above, 
on  chap,  xxxiv.  IG,  xl.  2G.  Lowth's  version,  vttcrly  lust,  is  substantially 
con-ect,  though  perhaps  too  strong.     Jarchi,  Cocceius,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis 

understand  ^7)r\'^'D  as  meaning  tvas  accounted  mad,  which  is  also  given  in 
the  mnrgin  of  the  English  liible,  but  has  no  foundation  either  in  etymology 
or  u=age.  It  is  now  commonly  agreed  that  this  verbal  form  is  near  akin 
to  the  noun  ''<V".  spoil  or  plunder,  and  has  here  the  same  sense  as  in 
Ps.  Ixxvi.  G.  This  explanation  is  sustained  by  the  authority  of  tho 
Targura  and  Jerome.  Kimchi  understands  it  to  describe  the  godly  man 
as  snatched  away,  perhaps  in  allusion  to  chap.  Ivii.  1.  Ewald  derives 
from  what  he  thinks  the  true  sense  of  the  root  the  meaning,  he  became 
rare  (wurde  sclten). 

16.  And  he  saw  that  there  was  no  man,  and  he  stood  aghast  that  there  was 
no  one  interposing ;  and  his  own  arm  saved  for  him,  and  his  own  righteousness^ 
it  ujihehl  him.  The  repetition  of  the  words  and  he  saw  connects  this  verse 
in  the  closest  uiiinner  with  the  one  before  it.  Rosenmiiller,  Umbreit,  and 
others,  follow  Jarchi  in  supposing  ki"N  to  be  emphatic  and  to  signify  a 
man  of  the  right  sort,  a  man  equal  to  the  occasion.  This  explanation 
derives  some  colour  from  the  analogj'  of  Jer.  v.  1  ;  but  even  there,  and 
Btill  more  here,  the  strength  of  the  expression  is  increased  rather  than 
diminished  by  taking  this  phrase  in  the  simple  sense  of  nobody.  What  was 
wanting  was  not  merely  a  qualified  man,  but  any  man  whatever,  to  maintain 
the  cause  of  Israel  and  Jehovah.  A  like  absolute  expression  is  employed 
in  2  Kings  xiv.  2G,  where  it  is  said  that  Jehovah  saw  the  aflliction  of  Israel, 
that  it  was  very  bitter,  and  that  there  was  no  helper /or  Israel,  not  merely 
no  sullieient  one,  but  none  at  all.  The  desperate  nature  of  the  case  is  then 
described  in  tenns  still  stronger,  and  only  applicable  to  Jehovah  by  the 
boldest  figure.  The  common  version  {wondered),  though  substantially  cor- 
rect, is  too  weak  to  express  the  full  force  of  the  Hebrew  word,  which  strictly 
means  to  be  desolate,  and  is  used  in  reference  to  persons  for  the  purpose  of 
cxi>ro88ing  an  extreme  degree  of  horror  and  astonishment.  (See  Ps.  cxliii.  4, 
and  compare  tho  colloquial  use  of  disole  in  French.)  As  applied  to  God, 
the  tenu  may  bo  considered  simply  anthropopathic,  or  as  intended  to  imply 
a  certain  sympathetic  union  with  humanity,  arising  from  tho  mode  in  which 
this  great  intervention  was  to  be  accomplished.— J?*??'?  strictly  denotes  caus- 
ing to  meet  or  come  together,  bringing  into  contact.  Hence  it  is  applied  to 
interccsEory  prayer,  and  this  sense  is  cxprcf^scd  licrc  by  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrase, r.ut  the  context,  etymology,  and  usage,  all  condtine  to  recommend 
tho  wider  sense  of  intervention,  interposition,  both  in  word  and  deed.     (See 


Yer.  IC]  ISATAIT  LIX.  371 

above,  on  chap.  liii.  12.)  This  sense  is  well  expressed  by  Lowtb  {tlwre  uas 
none  to  interpose),  except  that  he  gratuitously  substitutes  the  infinite  for 
the  active  pai  ticiple,  which  is  more  expressive,  as  suggesting  that  the  danger 
was  imminent  and  unavoidable  without  the  aid  of  some  one  actually  inter- 
posing to  avert  it.  The  full  force  of  the  last  clause  can  be  given  in  English 
only  b}'  the  use  of  the  emphatic  form  liis  oivn,  which  is  implied,  but  cannot 
be  distinctly  expressed  in  the  original  except  by  a  periphrasis.  To  do  any- 
thing with  one's  own  hand  or  arm,  is  an  expression  frequently  used  else- 
where to  denote  entire  independence  of  all  foreign  aid.  (See  Judges  vii.  2 ; 
1  Sam.  iv.  9,  xxv.  20;  Ps.  xliv.  4,  xcviii.  1.) — The  meaning  of  this  clause 
has  been  much  obscured  by  making  v  the  object  of  the  verb.  The  obvious 
incongruity  of  representing  God  as  saving  or  delivering  himself  has  led  to 
diti'erent  evasions.  Some  interpreters  attenuate  the  meaning  of  the  verb 
from  save  to  help,  which  is  the  favourite  expedient  of  the  modern  writers ; 
while  the  older  ones  content  themselves  with  making  it  intransitive  and 
absolute,  hronrjld  salvation  (English  Version),  wrought  salvation  (Lowth). 
The  only  simple  and  exact  translation  is,  his  arm  saved  for  him,  leaving 
the  object  to  be  gathered  from  the  context,  namely,  Israel  or  his  people. 
The  w  means  nothing  more  than  that  his  own  arm  did  \ifor  him,  without 
reliance  upon  any  other.  This  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  last  words  of 
the  verse,  where  hii  righteousness  sustained  him  means  that  he  relied  or 
depended  upon  it  exclusive)}'.  By  righteousness  in  this  case  we  are  not  to 
understand  a  simple  consciousness  of  doing  right,  nor  the  possession  of  a 
righteous  cause,  nor  a  right  to  do  what  he  did,  all  which  are  modifications 
of  the  same  essential  meaning,  nor  a  zealous  love  of  justice,  which  Vitringa 
deduces  from  the  use  of  the  word  fury  [i.e.  ardent  zeal)  in  the  parallel  pas- 
sage, chap.  Ixiii.  5.  It  is  far  more  satisfactory  to  give  the  word  its  strict  and 
proper  sense,  as  denoting  an  attribute  of  God,  here  joined  with  his  power,  to 
shew  that  what  are  commonly  distinguished  as  his  moral  or  his  natural 
perfections  are  alike  pledged  to  this  great  work,  and  constitute  his  only  reli- 
ance for  its  execution. — The  extraordinary  character  of  this  description,  and 
the  very  violence  which  it  seems  to  offer  to  our  ordinary  notions  of  the  divine 
nature,  unavoidably  prepare  the  mind  for  something  higher  than  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Jews  from  exile,  or  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans. 
The  embarrassment  occasioned  by  this  passage  to  the  champions  of  the 
Babylonian  theory  may  be  inferred  from  their  complex  and  unnatural  hypo- 
thesis, that  because  the  magistrates  and  elders  of  the  captivity  did  not  repress 
and  punish  the  oftences  just  described,  God  would  himself  do  it,  not  by 
continuing  the  exile  as  a  punishment,  but  by  destroying  Babylon,  and  with 
it  the  ungodly  Jews,  while  the  better  portion  should  escape  and  bo  restored 
to  their  own  countiy  !  It  is  a  strange  and  peculiar  idea  of  Ewald's,  that 
the  Prophet  here  reproaches  Israel  that  no  Messiah  had  arisen  from  among 
themselves  according  to  the  ancient  promise,  so  that  God  had  as  it  were 
been  under  the  necessity  of  raising  up  a  foreign  iustniment  for  their  deliver- 
ance, namely,  Cyrus.  If  all  things  else  were  as  much  in  favour  of  this  wild 
invention  as  they  arc  against  it,  a  sufficient  refutation  would  be  still  aflbrded 
by  the  obvious  unsuitableness  of  the  language  to  express  the  alleged  mean- 
ing. A  reluctant  use  of  foreign  agents  by  Jehovah  might  be  described  as 
anything  rather  than  his  own  arm  doing  the  work  for  him.  If  arm  means 
power,  it  was  no  more  exerted  in  the  one  case  than  it  would  have  been 
exerted  in  the  other;  if  it  means  instrumentality,  the  one  employed  was  not 
so  truly  or  emphatically  his  own  arm  as  it  would  have  been  if  raised  up 
from  among  his  own  people. 


872  ISJ/JI/  IJX.  [Vkr.  17. 

17.  And  he  clothed  himself  with  riijhtenusness  as  a  coat  of  mail  and  a 
helmet  of  salvation  rm  his  head,  and  he  clothed  himself  with  (janneuts  of 
venijeance  {for)  clothing,  and  put  on,  as  the  cloak  {or  tunic),  jealousy.  Here 
again  the  verse  is  closely  coiiiiected  with  tlie  one  before  it  by  the  repeti- 
tion of  '"'iJT^'  Its  relation  to  the  other  verso  is  not,  however,  that  of  an 
explanation,  as  implied  in  Hendewerk's  translation  of  the  particle  hy  for. 
The  writer  simply  carries  out  in  detail  his  geneml  declaration  that  Jehovah 
undertook  the  cause  of  Israel  himself,  under  figures  borrowed  from  the  usages 
of  war.  The  older  writ*rs  have  in  vain  pcq)lexed  themselves  with  etforts 
to  determine  why  righteousness  is  called  a  breastplate,  or  salvation  a  helmet, 
and  to  reconcile  the  variations  in  Paul's  copies  of  this  picture  (Kph.  vi.  4-17, 
1  Thess.  V.  8)  with  the  original.  The  true  principle  of  exegesis  in  such 
cases  is  the  one  laid  down  by  Clericus,  who  may  speak  with  authority 
whenever  the  question  in  dispute  is  a  question  not  of  doctrine  or  experience, 
but  of  taste.  Justice,  says  this  accomplished  rhetorician,  might  just  as  well 
have  been  a  sword,  salvation  a  shield,  vengeance  a  javelin  or  spoar,  and 
zeal  or  jealousy  a  torch  with  which  to  fire  the  hostile  camp.  l{alio  hahcnda 
est  scopi,  non  singularum  locuvi.  The  correctness  of  this  principle  is 
clear  from  the  general  analogy  of  figurative  language,  and  from  the  endless 
licence  of  invention  which  would  follow  from  the  adoption  of  the  other 
method,  so  that  in  aiming  at  precision  and  fulness  we  should  unavoidably 
involve  the  sense  of  Scripture  in  incurable  uncertainty.  That  the  figures 
in  this  case  were  intended  to  convey  the  general  idea  of  martial  equipment, 
may  be  gathered  from  a  fact  which  even  Vitringa  has  observed,  that  there 
is  no  reference  whatever  to  otVensivo  weapons,  an  omission  wholly  unac- 
countable upon  his  own  hypothesis.  There  is  no  ground  for  llosenmiiller's 
explanation  of  ni5Ty  as  denoting  the  desire  of  vengeance,  unless  this  be  a 
periphrasis  for  retributive  or  vindicator}-  justice.  Equally  groundless  is  the 
explanation  of  nj^lL***  by  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers  in  the  sense  of  nc- 
tory.  However  appropriate  and  striking  this  idea  may  bo  in  so  martial  a 
description,  it  is  not  the  one  expressed  by  the  writer,  who  looks  far  beyond 
mere  victory  to  the  salvation  of  God's  people  as  the  great  end  to  be  answered 
by  it.  There  is  mucli  more  plausibility  in  Knobels  suggestion,  that  the 
first  two  nouns  have  reference  to  Israel,  and  the  last  two  to  his  enemies; 
the  same  catastrophe  whidi  was  to  secure  justice  and  salvation  to  the  former, 
would  bring  the  zeal  and  vengeance  of  Jehovah  on  the  latter.  This  dis- 
tinction is  no  doubt  correct  so  far  as  the  terms  vengeance  and  salvation  are 
concerned;  but  it  cannot  be  so  well  sustained  as  to  the  others,  since  '"^i^Ty 
signifies  the  righteousness  of  God,  as  the  cause  of  the  catastrophe  in  ques- 
tion, and  HNJi?  not  merely  his  zeal  against  his  enemies,  but  his  jealous 
regard  for  his  own  honour  and  the  welfare  of  his  people.  (See  the  usage 
of  this  word  fully  stated  in  vol.  i.  p.  200).  The  particular  expressions  of 
the  verso  need  little  explanation.  The  first  piece  of  armour  specified  is 
not  the  breast-plate,  as  the  older  writers  generally  render  it,  perhaps  in 
reference  to  Kph.  vi.  11,  but  the  habergeon  or  coat  of  mail.  'J'he  first  and 
third  terms  denote  parts  of  armour  proi)er!y  so  called,  the  S(  cnnd  and  fourth 
the  dress  as  distinguished  from  the  armour.  The  r].'*2  is  t  itber  the  tunic 
or  the  military  clonk,  often  mentioned  in  the  classics  as  lieing  of  a  purple 
colour.  The  same  noun  is  construed  with  the  same  verb  in  1  Sam.  xxviii.  14. 
The  meaning  of  tho  whole  verse  is,  that  (lOil  equipjud  himself  for  battle, 
and  arrayed  his  power,  justice,  and  distinguishing  attachment  to  his  people, 
ogainst  their  persecutors  and  oppressors. — Jubb  jjroposes  to  omit  ri^"3<R 
as  supertluous,  inelegant,  and  probably  a  gloss  from  the  margin.     But  even 


Ykr.  18.]  ISAIAH  LIX.  073 

Lowth,  although  he  quotes  the  proposition,  leaves  the  text  unchangetl,  and 
Henderson  is  betrayed  into  the  opposite  extreme  of  pronouncing  the  word 
"  singularly  beautiful." 

18.  According  to  (their)  deeds,  accordlmjhj  luill  he  repay,  ivralh  to  his 
enemies,  (their)  desert  to  his  foes,  to  the  isles  (their)  desert  will  he  repay. 
The  essential  meaning  of  this  verse  is  evident  and  undisputed  :  but  thc.- 
form  of  expression  in  the  first  clause  is  singular,  if  not  anomalous.  Some 
of  the  latest  writers,  such  as  Mnurer,  Henderson,  and  Umbreit,  get  rid  of 
the  dilliculty  simply  by  denying  its  existence,  which  is  easy  enough  after 
evei-y  method  of  solution  has  been  suggested  by  preceding  writers.  That 
there  is  a  grammatical  difficulty  in  the  clause  is  evident  not  only  from  the 
paraphrastic  forms  adopted  by  the  ancient  versions,  but  also  from  the  at- 
tention given  to  the  question  by  such  scholars  as  De  Dieu,  Cocceius,  and 
Gesenius.  Ewald,  it  is  true,  passes  it  by  in  silence,  as  he  usually  does 
when  he  has  nothing  to  suggest  but  what  has  been  already  said  by  his 
predecessors.  Another  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  difficulty  is,  that  even 
those  who  deny  it  paraphrase  the  text  instead  of  rigidly  translating  it,  and 
thus  go  safely  round  the  hard  place  rather  than  triumphantly  through  it. 
The  difficulty  is  not  exogetical,  but  purely  grammatical,  arising  from  the 
unexampled  use  of  the  preposition  ?J?  without  an  object :  According  to  their 
deeds — according  to — tvill  he  repay.  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  give  to  ^V.  its 
original  value  as  a  noun,  which  very  rarely  occurs  elsewhere  (Hosea  xi.  7, 
vii.  IG),  and  understand  it  here  to  mean  the  height  or  highest  degree  : 
"  According  to  the  height  of  their  deserts,  according  to  the  height,  will  I 
repay."  Lowth,  after  quoting  Yitringa's  opinion,  that  Cocceius  and  him- 
self had  together  made  out  the  true  sense,  adds  with  some  humour,  "I  do 
not  expect  that  any  third  person  will  ever  be  of  that  opinion."  He  little 
imagined  that  his  own  would  never  even  be  seconded.  His  proposition  is 
to  read  W"^  for  "^J??  in  either  case,  on  the  authority  of  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrase of  this  place  compared  with  that  of  chap.  xxxv.  4,  and  Prov.  xxii.  24, 
in  all  which  cases  the  Chaldee  has  *10  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  ?y3, 
lord  or  master.  The  text  thus  amended  Lowth  translates.  He  is  mighty  to 
recompense,  he  that  is  mighty  to  rrconijieiis"  will  reijuite,  of  which  Henderson 
observes  that  it  is  drawling  and  paraphrastieal  at  best,  and  incorrectly 
rendered ;  as  it  ought  to  have  been,  J/e  is  the  Uetrihuior,  the  Retrihutor 
will  requite.  But  even  granting  Lowth  the  right  to  fix  the  meaning  of  a 
text  manufactured  by  himself,  it  is  evident  that  such  an  emendation  must 
be  critically  worthless.  De  Dieu  and  lloscnmiiller  explain  ?J^  when  used 
in  the  sense  of  propter  as  equivalent  to  a  noun  meaning  cause  or  reason  ; 
as  if  he  had  said,  "on  account  of  their  deeds  on  (that)  account,  will  I 
repay."  But  besides  the  artificial  character  of  this  solution,  it  overlooks 
the  i\xct  that  although  W  by  itself  might  simply  indicate  the  cause  or  ground, 
the  3  prefixed  denotes  proportion,  as  in  other  cases  where  it  follows  verbs 
of  recompence.  [E.g.  Ps.  xviii.  21,  Ixii.  13,  Jer.  1.  39.)  The  latest 
writers  seem  to  have  come  back  to  the  simple  and  obvious  supposition  of 
the  oldest  writers,  such  as  Jerome  and  the  Rabbins,  that  it  is  a  case  of 
anomalous  ellipsis,  tbe  object  of  the  preposition  being  not  expressed,  but 
mentally  repeated  from  the  foregoing  clause  :  According  to  their  deeds,  ac- 
cording to  them,  he  will  repay.  In  the  mere  repetition  there  is  nothing 
singular,  but  rather  something  characteristic  of  the  Prophet.  (See  above, 
chap.  lii.  6.)  Maurer  and  several  later  \\Titers  choose,  however,  to  regard 
it  not  as  a  mere  repetition  of  the  same  words  in  the  same  sense,  but  as  an 


H7 1  ISALUI LIX.  [Veb.  19. 

instance  of  the  idiomatic  use  of  | — ?,  as  equivalent  to  our  as — so.     The 
souse  will  then  be,  "  as  acconling  to  their  deeds,  so  according  tt)  (their 
deeds)  will  he  repay."      V>\\i  this  construction  would  create  a  difhculty, 
even  if  these  writers  were  correct  in  denying  its  existence  there  ulread)*. 
All  tliat  need  be  added  is,  that   the  English  Version  happily  approaches  to 
a  perfect  reproduction  of  the  Hebrew  expression  Ly  employing  the  cognate 
terms  accordirxj  and    accordingly,  which  has  the  advant:ige  of  retaining 
essentially  the  same  term,  and  yet  varying  it  so  as  to  avoid  a  grammatical 
anomaly  by  which  it  might  have  been  rendered  unintelligible. — /^O^,  ac- 
cording to  the  modern  lexirogrnphers,  is  not  directly  nrowjjense,  but  cnmlitct, 
either  good  or  had,  and  us  such  worthy  of  rewai'd  or  punishment.     For 
Hengstenberg's  peculiar  explanation  of  the  verb  and  its  derivatives,  see  his 
Commentarv'  on  the   Psalms,  i.  p.  147,  and  vol.  i.  p.  114.     The  feminine 
plural  here  used  in  the  first  elause,  corresponds  to  the  singular  in  2  Sam. 
xix.  37. — The  last  c'ause,  relating  to  the  i.slands,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  his 
usual  ostentatious  manner,  declares   himself  incompetent  to  understand, 
and,  as  he  says  himself  of  Kennioolt  elsewhere,  seems  disposed  to  wonder 
that  anyboJy  else  should  be  so  bold  as  to  understand  it  better  than  himself. 
On  the  whole  he  is  inclined  to  regard  it  as  a  promise  that  the  true  religion 
should  be  spread  tliroughout  Europe.     The  modern  writers  who  restrict 
the  passage  to  the  iJabylonian  exile,  are  again  emban-assed  by  the  wTiter's 
losing   sight  of  the  wicked  Jews  whom   he   had  been  describing,  and  as 
J.  D.  Michaelis  says,  threatening  to  visit  their  oflences  on  the  Gentiles. 
Knobel  easily  gets  over  this  obstruction  by  observing  that,  although  the 
wicked  Jews  were   to  be  implicated  in  the  niin  of  the  Bubvloni.ais,  yet 
a!)  these  were  the  direct  object  of  attaek  to  Cyru«,  they  alone  are  men- 
tioned.    How  fur  this  will  make  it  appear  natural  to  say,  "  because  ye 
are  wicked,  I  will  punish  the  Gentiles,"  let  the  reader  judge.     There  is 
also    something    very    artificial    in    Henderson's    distinction    between   the 
enemies  and  adversaries  of  this  verse,  as  meaning  the  wicked  Jews  de- 
stroyed or  scattered  by  the  Romans,  and  the  isles,  as  meaning  tlio  Romans 
themselves,  who  were  to  be  overthrown  by  the  barbarians.     The  objec- 
tion to  such  exegetical  refinements  is  not  that  they  are  in  themselves 
absurd  or  incredible,  hut  simply  that  a  thousand  others  might  be  in- 
vented not  an  atom  more  so.     The  only  satisfactory  solution  is  the  one 
afforded  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  salvation  here  intended  is  salvation 
in  the  highest  sense  from  sin  and  all  its  consequences,  and  tiiat  by  Israel 
and  the  isles  (or  Gentiles)  we  are  to  understand  the  church  or  people  of 
God,  and  the  world  considered  as  its  enemies  and  his. 

10,  And  tlirij  shall  /ear  from  ffif  lOist  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  fiom  the 
rising  ff  (he  sun  his  glory;  tor  it  shall  come  like  a  straitened  stnairt,  tht 
spirit  of  Jehnvah  raisimj  a  banner  in  it.  Luther  and  Ewald  nntrk  the 
dependence  of  this  verse  upon  the  one  before  it  by  translating  the  1  so  that; 
but  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  simplicity 
of  the  origiiuil  construction.  The  name  and  glory  of  Jehovah  are  here  not 
only  parallels  but  synonymcs,  as  we  learn  from  other  places  where  the  two 
terms  are  jointly  or  severally  used  to  signify  the  manifested  excellence  or 
glorions  presence  of  Jehovah.  (See  above,  chaps,  xxx.  27,  xxxv.  2,  xl.  Ti, 
xlii.  11.)  As  in  "these  and  other  places  {e.g.  chap.  viii.  9,  xviii.  8, 
xxxiii.  IS),  the  remotest  nations  or  ends  of  the  earth,  here  represented  by 
the  cast  and  west  (chajis.  xliii.  /),  xlv.  0),  are  said  to  see  his  name  or  glory, 
Knobel  accordingly  translates  the  first  verb  they  shall  see.  Rut  although 
this  afl'ords  a  good  sense  and  is  justified  by  usage,  it  effects  no  such  im- 


Yer.  19.J  ISAIAH  LIX.  375 

provement  in  tho  mcauiug  of  the  passa^^e  as  would  compensate  for  the 
violation  of  the  Masoretic  pointing,  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  all  the 
ancient  versions.  Let  it  also  be  observed  that  the  seeing  is  implied  or  pre- 
supposed in  the  fearing,  and  that  the  mention  of  this  last  efl'ect  agrees  best 
with  the  meaning  of  the  last  clause,  which  on  any  exegetical  hypothesis 
suggests  the  thoughts  of  conflict  and  coercion.  Gescnius  gratuitously 
changL's  from  to  in,  as  if  the  apparent  necessity  of  that  sense  in  a  few 
doubtful  cases  could  justify  its  substitution  for  the  proper  one  in  cases  hko 
the  present,  where  it  not  only  yields  an  intelligible  sense  but  suggests  an  idea 
which  must  otherwise  be  lost,  vi/.,  that  of  convergence  from  these  distant 
points  as  to  a  common  centre.  There  is  the  same  objection  to  the  sense 
which  Lowth  and  Henderson  attach  to  IP,  viz.  ihvki  oi  belonging  to  (they  from 
the  irest,  those  of  the  west),  besides  the  dubious  grammatical  correctness  of 
regarding  as  the  subject  of  the  verb  what  appears  to  be  dependent  on  it  as  a 
qualifying  phrase.  There  is  something  pleasing,  if  no  more,  in  the  sug- 
gestion of  Yitringa,  that  the  usual  order  of  the  east  and  west  (chap,  xliii.  5, 
Mai.  i.  11)  is  here  reversed,  as  if  to  intimate  that  the  ditfusion  of  the  truth 
shall  one  day  take  a  new  direction,  an  idea  which  Henderson  applies  speci- 
cally  to  the  Christian  missions  of  Great  Britain  and  America,  not  only  to 
new  countries  but  to  Asia,  the  cradle  of  the  gospel,  of  the  law,  and  of  the 
human  race.  The  I  ist  clause  of  this  verse  has  been  a  famous  subject  of 
dispute  among  interpreters,  who  ditl'er  more  or  less  in  reference  to  every 
word,  as  well  as  to  the  general  meaning  of  the  whole.  The  least  important 
question  has  respect  to  the  *?  at  the  beginning  of  the  clause  ;  for  whether 
this  be  rendered  tchen  or  for,  the  sense  remains  essentially  the  same, 
because  the  one  implies  the  other.  The  oidy  weighty  reasons  for  preferring 
the  latter,  are  first  its  natural  priority  as  being  the  usual  and  proper  sense, 
and  then  the  simplicity  of  structure  which  results  from  it  as  being  more 
accordant  with  the  genius  and  usage  of  the  language.  As  to  the  next 
word  (^2))  the  only  question  is  in  relation  to  its  subject  or  nominative, 
some  connecting  it  with  na7ne  or  glory  in  the  other  clause,  some  with 
Jehovah,  some  with  IV  considered  as  a  noun.  Of  those  w^ho  thus  explain 
"ly,  some  suppose  it  to  mean  anguish  or  distress  as  in  chap.  Ixiii.  8,  others 
an  enemy  as  in  ver.  18  above.  Of  those  who  consider  it  an  adjective,  one 
understands  it  to  mean  hostile,  but  the  great  majority  narrow  or  compressed. 
The  questions  as  to  nil  are  whether  it  means  breath  or  spirit,  and  whether 
it  is  a  poetical  description  of  the  wind,  or  a  personal  designation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  only  doubt  in  reference  to  Hin^.  is  whether  it  is 
idiomatically  used  to  qualify  the  word  before  it  (as  a  strong  wind),  or 
employed  more  strictly  as  a  divine  name.  But  the  great  theme  of  contro- 
versy is  in  the  next  word  ^99?!  which  some  derive  from  D-1J,  and  some  from 
DDJ)  J  some  regard  as  a  participle  and  others  as  a  preterite  ;  some  understand 
as  meaning  to  set  up  a  banner  and  others  to  put  to  flight,  to  drive  along, 
or  scatter.  Lastly  i^  is  by  some  construed  directly  with  the  verb  as  its 
object  (drive  it,  scatter  it,  &c.),  while  by  others  it  is  separately  understood 
as  meaning  either  in  it  or  aijainU  it.  From  the  combination  of  these 
various  senses  have  resulted  several  distinct  interpretations  of  the  whole 
clause,  two  of  which  deserve  to  be  particularly  mentioned,  as  the  two 
between  which  most  writers  have  been  and  are  still  divided.  The  first  of 
these  is  the  interpretation  found,  as  to  its  essence,  in  several  of  the  ancient 
versions,  and  especially  the  Ynlgate,  cum  venerit  quasi  jiuvim  violentus  quern 
Spiritus  Domini  cogit.  This  is  substantially  retained  by  Luther  and  by 
Lowth  (when  he  shall  come  like  a  river  straitened  in  his  course,  which  a 


876  ISAIAH  LIX.  \yv.u.  19. 

Btrong  wind  drivcth  along).  It  is  also  given  by  most  of  the  recent  German 
writers,  with  trivial  variations,  Geseuius  reading  when,  Ewald /or,  and  the 
like.  According  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  njn^  PHI  is  either  a  Hebrew 
idiom  for  a  strong  wind,  or  a  poetical  description  of  the  wind  in  general  as 
the  breath  of  God.  The  former  explanatii)n,  although  Lowth  prefers  it,  is 
a?sthetically  far  below  tbe  other,  which  the  later  writers  commonly  adopt. 
It  will  also  be  observed  that  this  interpretation  makes  '"ipi?:  the  causative 
of  D-13,  to  Jhj,  and  takes  IV  as  an  adjective,  and  in  its  primary  etymological 
sense  of  narmw  compressed  (Num.  xxii.  2(j),  the  idea  being  that  of  a 
stream  confined  in  a  narrow  channel  and  llowing  violently  through  it.  The 
other  principal  interpretation  of  the  clause  gives  '?  the  sense  of  when,  1^ 
that  of  enemy,  construes  the  latter  with  the  verb  to  come,  derives  '"ipP? 
from  D^,  a  banner,  and  explains  the  whole  to  mean  ihaXwhenthe  enemy  shall 
come  in  lilce  a  jlood,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  lift  up  a  standard  ayainst 
htm.  This  is  the  version  of  the  English  and  Dutch  Bibles,  of  Vitriuga, 
Alting,  Henderson,  and  others.  Between  these  two  main  iuterpreiatious 
there  are  others  too  numerous  to  be  recited,  which  agree  essentially  with 
one  but  in  some  minor  points  coincide  with  the  other  or  dissent  from  both. 
Thus  Jarchi  gives  to  npp:  the  sense  of  consuming,  which  he  thinks  it  has 
in  chap,  x,  18,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  that  of  dryhig  up,  which  he  founds 
upon  an  Arabic  analog}-.  ALen  Ezra  and  Hitzig,  though  they  construe  ")>' 
with  the  preceding  verb,  make  it  a  substantive  signifying  pressm-e  or  distress. 
Maurer  agrees  with  the  second  exposition  of  the  clause  in  all  points,  except 
that  he  exijlains  npp!)  in  the  sense  of  dispelling,  and  applies  it  to  the  stream 
itself.  The  objections  to  the  first  (and  now  prevailing)  exposition,  as  stated 
by  Rosenmiiller  and  Maurer,  are,  its  needless  violation  of  the  Masoretic 
accents,  which  forbid  the  intimate  conjunction  of  1'7?  and  ">>*  as  a  noun  and 
adjective ;  the  inconginiity  of  likening  Jehovah  to  a  river  which  his  own 
breath  drives  along :  and  the  improbability  that  ly  is  here  used  in  a  difle- 
reut  sense  from  that  which  all  attach  to  the  plural  in  ver.  18.  To  this  may 
be  added  the  unnatural  image  of  a  stream  rendered  rapid  by  the  wind,  and 
(against  Maurer's  own  interpretation)  the  gratuitous  assumption  that  the 
Polel  of  Di:  is  used  in  this  one  place,  and  as  a  causative,  when  that  idea  is 
expressed  so  often  elsewhere  by  the  Hiphil  of  the  same  verb.  On  the  other 
hand,  Gesenius  himself  derives  D:  from  a  root  Dp3,  to  raise,  which  might 
therefore  be  poetically  used  without  the  noun  to  express  the  whole  idea ;  or 
the  form  before  us  niif^ht  without  absurdity  be  looked  upon  as  an  amalgam 
of  the  words  D;j  N*b;i,  which  are  combined  in  chaps,  v.  2t>,  xiii.  2,  iVc. 
(Compare  the  compound  forms  n37n  and  D'NDpn,  as  explained  by  Heng- 
stenberg  in  his  Conmunlary  on  the  Psalms,  vol.  i.  p.  218.)  The  common 
version  of  this  vexed  clause,  therefore,  is  entirely  defensible,  and  clearly 
preferable  to  the  one  which  has  so  nearly  superseded  it.  Considering, 
however,  the  objections  to  which  both  are  open,  it  may  be  possible  to  come 
still  nearer  to  the  true  sense  by  combining  what  is  least  objectionable  in  the 
other  expositions ;  and  in  this  view,  no  interpreter  j)erbaps  has  been  more  suc- 
cessful than  Cocceius,  who  translates  the  clause,  ijiiia  truiff  tamj'iam Jluvius 
hoalts  in  quo  Spiritus  lUmiini  siijnum  prtrfcrt.  Besides  giving  every  word 
its  strictest  or  most  jirobable  interpretatit)n,  this  ingenious  version,  as  if  by 
anticipation,  shuns  the  last  objection  to  Vitringa's,  namely,  that  of  Knobcl, 
that  the  context  does  not  lead  us  to  expect  an  allusion  to  the  coming  of 
God's  enemies  against  him,  but  rather  to  his  coming  against  them,  as  the 
preceding  clause  declares  that  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  shall  fear  his  name 
and  his  glory.     The  objection  of  Vjtringa,  that  the  instruments  of  the  divine 


Ver.  20.j  ISAlAll  LIX.  B77 

purpose  would  not  here  be  called  au  enemy,  is  without  weight ;  since  enemy 
is  a  relative  expression,  and  Jehovah  is  continually  represented  as  sustam- 
in"  this  relation  to  the  wicked  world.  Another  merit  of  Cocceius's  inter- 
pretation is  that  instead  of  <,'iviug  U  the  rare  and  doubtful  sense  oi  a<;ainst 
him,  or  the  still  more  doubtful  otlice  of  a  mere  connective  of  the  verb  and 
object,  he  explains  it  strictly  as  denoting,'  in  ■it,  and  at  the  same  time  intro- 
duces a  new  and  striking  im'age,  that  of  the  triumphant  Hag  or  signal  erected 
in  the  stream  itself  and  floating  on  its  waves  as  it  approaches.— On  the 
whole,  then,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  appears  to  be,  that  the  ends  of  the 
earth  shall  see  and  fear  the  name  and  glory  of  Jehovah  ;  because  when  he 
approaches  as  their  enemv,  it  will  be  like  an  overflowing  stream  (chaps, 
viii.  7,  8,  xxviii.  15),  in  which  his  Spirit  bears  aloft  the  banner  or  the  signal 
of  victory.  The  specific  explanation  of  inS?  in  the  Targum  as  denoting 
the  Euphrates  is  a  very  iusutlicient  ground  for  Vitringa's  application  of  the 
passage  to  the  Saracens  and  Tartars. 

20.   Then  shall  come  for  ZIon  a  Jiedeemcr,  and  for  the  eouverts  of  aposfas;/ 
in  Jacob,  saith  Jehovah.     The  English  theii  is  here  used  to  convey  the  full 
force  of  the  Vav  conversive,  which  cannot  be  expressed  in  our  idiom  by  the 
simple  copulative  and.      The  original  construction  necessarily  suggests 
the  idea  of  succession  and  depnulence.     ?  is  not  the  proper  particle  of 
motion  or  direction,  though  it  often  suppHes  its  place  as  well  as  that  of 
other  prepositions.     This  arises  from  thu  fact  repeatedly  stated  heretofore, 
that "?  properly  denotes  relation  in  the  widest  sense,  and  is  most  commonly 
equivalent  to  as  to,  ivith  respect  to,  the  precise  relation  being  left  to  be 
determined  bv  the  context.     So  in  this  place  P'V?  strictly  means  nothing 
more  than  that  the  advent  of  the  great  deliverer  promised  has  respect  to 
Zion  or  the  chosen  people,  without  deciding  what  particular  respect,  whether 
local,  temporal,  or  of  another  nature  altogether.     Hence  the  Septuagint 
version,  my.iy  li/wv,  though  it  may  be  too  speciflc,  is  not  contradictory  to 
the  original ;  and  even  Paul's  translation,  sx  2/wi',  although  it  seems  com- 
pletelv°to  reverse  the  sense,  is  not  so  wholly  inconsistent  with  it  as  has 
sometimes  been  pretended.     For  although  tlie  Hebrew  words  do  not  mean 
from  Zion,  they  mean  that  which  may  include  from  Zion,  in  its  scope ; 
because  it  might  be  by  going  out  of  Zion  that  he  was  to  act  as  her  deliverer, 
and  the  apostle  might  intend  by  his  translation  to  suggest  the  idea  that 
Ziou's  redeemer  was  to  be  also  the  redeemer  of  the  Gentiles.     In  no  case, 
tiierefore,  is  there  any  ground  for  charging  the  apostle  with  perversion,  or 
the  Hebrew  text  with" corruption,  as  Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaehs  do  by  their 
assimilation  of  it  to  the  words  of  Paul.     It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  the 
variation  in  the  latter  not  only  from  the  Hebrew  but  the  Septuagint,  together 
with  the  use  which  the  apostle  makes  of  this  citation,  warrant  the  conclusion 
that  he  is  not  there  interpreting  Isaiah,  but  employing  the  fomiliar  language 
of  an  ancient  prophecy  as  the  vehicle  of  a  new  one.     Other  examples  of 
this  practice  have  occurred  before,  nor  is  there  anything  unworthy  or  unrea- 
sonable in  it,  when  the  context  in  both  cases  clearly  shews  the  author's 
drift,  as  in  the  case  before  us,  where  it  seems  no  less  clear  that  Paul  em- 
ploys the  language  to  predict  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews,  than  that 
Isaiah  uses  it  to  foretell  the  deliverance  of  God's  people  from  their  enemies 
in  case  of  their  repentance,  without  any  reference  to  local,  temporal,  or 
national  distinctions.     This  hypothesis  in  reference  to  Paul's  (piotation  has 
the  advantage  of  accounting  for  his  change  of  the  original  expression,  which 
may  then  be  regarded  as  a  kind  of  caution  against  that  very  error  into 


378  ISA lAll  I. IX.  [Teb.  21 . 

which  interpreters  have  generally  fallen.  As  to  Knobel's  figment  of  Zion 
representing  the  captivit}-  in  Haln  Ion,  it  seems  to  call  for  no  additional  dis- 
cussion, (See  above,  on  chap.  xl.  2.)  The  expression  converts  of  tmns- 
'jnssion  or  apostasy  is  perfectly  intelligible,  though  unusual,  and  perhaps 
without  example  ;  since  according  to  analogy  the  phrase  would  seem  to  me;in 
those  relapsing  into  apostasy,  the  impossibility  of  which  sense  conspires 
with  the  context  to  determine  as  the  true  sense  that  which  every  realer 
spontaneously  atUiches  to  it. 

'Jl.  And  1  (or  as  for  vie) — this  {in)  my  corcnunt  nil/i  them,  naith  Jchorah. 
Mij  Spirit  uhich  is  on  thee,  and  my  words  which  I  hare  placed  in  thy  mouth, 
nhall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed,  nor  oaf  of 
the  mouth  of  thy  seed^s  seed,  saith  Jehovah,  from  hcnc/forth  and  for  ever  (or 
Jrom  now  and  to  eternity).  The  absolute  pronoun  at  the  beginning  is  not 
merely  cmphalic,  but  intended  to  intimate  a  change  of  person,  God  himself 
reappearing  as  the  speaker.  There  may  also  be  allusion  to  the  use  of  the 
pronoun  in  the  promise  to  Noah  (Gen.  ix.  1»),  which  was  ever  present  to  the 
mind  of  Jewish  readers  as  the  great  standing  type  and  model  of  God's  cove- 
nants and  promises.  rin|  denotes  the  stipulation  which  Jehovah  con- 
descends to  make  in  return  for  the  repentance  and  conversion  imjjlictly 
required  in  the  verse  preceding.  This  view  of  the  connection  may  serve  still 
lurther  to  explain  the  introduction  of  the  pronoun,  as  denoting  upon  my 
jiart,  and  referring  to  the  previous  requi.*ition  of  something  upon  theirs. 
The  only  natural  antecedent  of  the  pronoun  (hein  is  the  converts  nf  apostasy 
in  Jticob,  to  whom  the  promise  in  ver.  20  is  limited.  The.so  are  then  sud- 
denly addressed,  or  rather  the  discourse  is  turned  to  Israel  himself  as  the 
l^rogenitor  or  as  the  ideal  representative  of  his  descendants,  not  considered 
merely  as  a  nation  but  as  a  church,  and  therefore  including  proselytes  as 
well  as  natives.  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  nay,  believing  Gentiles  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  unbelieving  Jews.  This  idea  of  the  Israel  of  God  and  of  the 
Prophecies  is  too  clearly  stated  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  to  bo  misap- 
prehended or  denied  by  any  who  admit  the  authority  of  the  apostle.  This 
interpretation  is  moreover  not  a  mere  incidental  application  of  Old  Testa- 
ment expressions  to  another  subject,  but  a  protracted  and  repeated  exposi- 
tion of  the  mutual  relations  of  the  old  and  new  economy,  and  of  the  natural 
and  spiritual  Israel.  To  this  great  body,  considered  as  the  Israel  of  God, 
the  promise  ncnv  before  us  is  addressed,  a  promise  of  continued  spiritual 
influence  exerted  through  the  word  and  giving  it  effect.  The  phrase,  upon 
thee,  here  as  elsewhere,  implies  influence  from  above,  and  has  respect  to  the 
figure  of  the  Spirit's  descending  and  ab ding  on  the  object.  The  particular 
mention  of  the  mouth  cannot  be  explained  as  having  reference  merely  to 
the  reception  of  the  word,  in  which  case  the  ear  would  have  been  more 
appropriate.  The  true  explanation  seems  to  be  that  Israel  is  here,  as  in 
many  other  pails  of  this  great  prophec}',  regarded  not  merely  as  a  receiver 
but  as  a  dispenser  of  the  truth;  an  office  with  which,  as  wo  have  seen,  the 
Body  is  invested  in  connection  with  the  Head,  and  in  perpetual  subordina- 
tion to  him.  Israel,  as  well  as  the  Messiah,  and  in  duo  dependence  on 
birli,  was  to  be  the  light  of  the  Gentiles,  the  reclnimer  of  apostate  nations; 
and  in  this  high  mission  and  vocation  was  to  be  sustained  and  prospered 
by  the  never-failing  j)rosenco  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  author  and  the 
finisher  of  all  revelation.  (See  above,  chaps,  xlii.  1-7,  xliv.  3,  xlix.  1-0, 
li.  10,  liv.  8,  Ivi.  G-H,  Iviii.  12.  And  comp.iro  Jer.  xxxi.  HI  ;  Joel  ii.  28; 
E/.ek.  xxxvi.  27,  xxxix.  21»  ) 


Ver.  1.1  ISATAir  LX.  379 


CHAPTER   LX. 

Having  repeatedly  aud  fully  shewn  that  the  iiatioual  pro-emiucnce  of 
Israel  was  not  to  be  perpetual,  that  the  loss  of  it  was  the  natural  conse- 
quence and  righteous  retribution  of  iniquity,  and  that  this  loss  did  not 
involve  the  destruction  of  the  true  church  or  spiritual  Israel,  the  Prophet 
now  proceeds  to  shew  that  to  the  latter  the  approaching  change  would  be  a 
glorious  and  blessed  one.  He  accordingly  describes  it  as  a  new  and  divine 
light  rising  upon  Zion,  ver.  1.  He  contrasts  it  with  the  darkness  of  sur- 
rounding nations,  ver.  2.  Yet  these  arc  not  excluded  from  participation  in 
the  light,  ver.  3.  The  elect  in  every  nation  are  the  children  of  the  church, 
and  shall  be  gathered  to  her,  vers.  4,  5.  On  one  side  he  sees  the-  oriental 
caravans  and  flocks  approaching,  vers.  6,  7.  On  the  other,  the  commer- 
cial fleets  of  wostcni  nations,  vers.  8,  9.  What  seemed  to  be  rejection  is 
in  fact  the  highest  favour,  ver.  10.  The  glory  of  the  true  churcli  is  her 
freedom  iVom  local  and  national  restrictions,  ver.  11.  None  are  excluded 
from  her  pale  but  those  who  exclude  themselves  aud  thereby  perish,  ver.  12. 
External  nature  shall  contribute  to  her  splendour,  ver.  13.  Her  very  ene- 
mies shall  do  her  homage,  ver.  14.  Instead  of  being  cast  ofi",  she  is  glori- 
fied for  ever,  ver.  15.  Instead  of  being  identified  with  one  nation,  she 
shall  derive  support  from  all,  ver.  16.  All  that  is  changed  in  her  condition 
shall  be  changed  for  the  better,  ver.  17.  The  evils  of  her  former  state  are 
done  away,  ver.  18.  Even  some  of  its  advantages  are  now  superfluous, 
ver.  It).  What  remains  shall  no  longer  be  precarious,  ver.  20.  The  splen- 
dour of  this  new  dispensation  is  a  moral  and  spiritual  splendour,  but 
attended  by  external  safety  and  protection,  vers.  21,  22,  All  this  shall 
certainly  and  promptly  come  to  pass  at  the  appoiuted  time,  ver.  22, 

Here,  as  elsewhere,  the  new  dispensation  is  contrasted,  as  a  whole,  with 
that  betbre  it.  We  are  not  therefore  to  seek  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy 
in  any  one  period  of  history  exclusively,  nor  to  consider  actual  corruptions 
and  alHictions  as  inconsistent  with  the  splendid  vision  of  the  New  Jerusalem 
presented  to  the  Prophet,  nor  in  its  successive  stages,  but  at  one  grand 
panoramic  view, 

1.  Arise,  he  lujht ;  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  Jehovah  has 
risen  upon  thee.  These  are  the  words,  not  of  a  prophetic  chorus,  as  Vit- 
ringa  imagines,  but  of  Isaiah,  speaking  in  the  name  of  God  to  Zion  or 
Jerusalem,  not  merely  as  a  city,  nor  even  as  a  capital,  but  as  the  centre, 
representative,  and  symbol  of  the  church  or  chosen  people.  A  precisely 
analogous  example  is  atlordcd  by  the  use  of  the  name  Rome  in  modern 
religious  controversy,  not  to  denote  the  city  or  the  civil  government  as 
such,  but  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  with  all  its  parts,  depoiidencres, 
and  interests.  The  one  usage  is  as  natural  and  intelligible  as  the  other ; 
and  if  no  one  hesitates  to  say  that  Newman  has  apostatized  to  Rome,  or 
that  his  influence  has  added  greatly  to  the  strength  of  Rome  in  England, 
no  one  can  justly  treat  it  as  a  wresting  of  the  Prophet's  language  to  explain 
it  in  precisely  the  same  manner.  And  the  arguments  employed  to  prove 
that  the  Israel  and  Jerusalem  of  these  predictions  are  the  natural  Israel 
and  the  literal  Jerusalem,  would  equally  avail  to  prove,  in  future  ages,  that 
the  hopes  and  fears  expressed  at  this  day  in  relation  to  the  growing  or  de- 
creasing power  of  Rome  have  reference  to  the  increase  of  the  city,  or  the 
fall  of  the  temporal  monarchy  estabhshed  there. — The  object  of  address  is 
here  so  plain  that  several  of  the  ancient  versions  actually  introduce  the 


8^0  ISAIAH  LX.  |VtR.  2,  ». 

name  Jerusalem.  The  Septuagint  renders  bolh  the  verbs  at  Ihe  beginning 
by  f  wr/^'/u,  which  is  probably  to  be  regarded,  not  as  a  diti'crence  of  text, 
but  as  a  im-re  inadvertence.  The  common  version  shine  is  d'*fective  only 
in  not  shewing  the  ulKnity  between  the  verb  and  noun,  which  is  so  marked 
in  the  original.  The  English  risen  is  also  less  expressive,  because  more 
ambiguous  and  vague,  than  the  Hebrew  n"iT,  which  means  not  to  rise  in 
general,  but  to  rise  above  the  horizon,  to  appear.  The  fflory  of  Jehovah 
is  his  manifested  presence,  with  allusion  to  the  cloudy  pillar  and  the 
Shechinah.  I'jmn  thir  represents  Jerusalem  as  exposed  and  subjected  to 
the  full  blaze  of  this  rising  light.  Kosenmiiller's  notion  that  he  light. 
means  Iw  chirrfnl,  as  the  eyes  are  elsewhere  said  to  be  enlightened  (1  Sam. 
xiv.  27,  29),  is  inconsistent  with  the  figure  of  a  rishig  sun.  The  explana- 
tion of  the  words  by  others  as  an  exhortation  to  come  to  the  light,  supposes 
the  object  of  address  to  be  a  person,  which  is  not  the  case.  Light,  and 
especially  the  light  imparted  by  the  divine  presence,  is  a  common  figure 
for  prosperity,  both  temporal  and  spiritual.  Hitzig  gravely  represents  it  as 
certain  from  this  verse,  talun  in  connection  with  chap.  Ixii.  11,  that  be- 
tween the  completion  of  the  foregoing  chapter  and  the  beginning  of  this. 
Cyrus  issued  his  decree  for  the  return  of  the  captivity  to  Palestine.  To  an 
unbiassed  reader  it  must  be  evident  that  this  is  a  direct  continuation  of  the 
foregoing  context,  and  that  what  follows  is  distingiiished  from  what  goes 
before  only  by  the  increasing  prominence  with  which  the  normal  and  ideal 
perfection  of  the  church  is  set  forth,  as  the  jjrophecy  draws  near  to  a  con- 
clusion. 

2.  For  lehold,  the  darknesn  shall  corer  the  earth,  and  a  qlootn  the  natiotitt, 
and  upon  thee  shall  Jehnvuh  rixe,  and  hin  fflvri/  upon  thee  shall  be  seen.  The 
geni  ral  description  in  the  first  verse  is  now  amplified  and  carried  out  into 
detail.  Of  this  specification  the  verse  before  us  contains  only  the  begin- 
ning. To  regard  it  as  the  whole  would  be  to  make  the  Prophet  say  the 
very  opposite  of  what  he  does  say.  The  perfection  of  the  glory  promised 
to  the  church  is  not  to  arise  from  its  contrast  with  the  darkness  of  the 
world  around  it,  but  from  the  ditl'usion  of  its  hght  until  that  darkness  dis- 
appears. The  Prophet  here  reverts  for  a  moment  to  the  previous  condition 
of  the  world,  in  order  to  describe  with  more  eflect  the  glorious  changes  to 
be  produced.  He  is  not  therefore  to  be  understcxKl  as  saying  that  Zion 
shall  be  glorious  because  while  the  nations  are  in  darkness  she  is  to  enjoy 
exclusive  light,  but  because  the  light  imparted  to  her  first  shall  draw  the 
nations  to  her. — 7?^^  is  essentially  equivalent  to  ''IV"^,  but  stronger  and 
more  poetical. — Lowth  translates  it  idfiDur,  which  would  be  an  anticlimax, 
and  has  no  etymological  exactness  to  recommend  it.  Gesenius  translates 
it  nii/ht,  but  in  his  Lexicon  explains  it  as  a  compound  or  mixed  form, 
meaning  a  dark  cloud.  Jehovah  and  his  ///on/,  which  are  jointly  said  to 
rise  in  the  preceding  verse,  are  hero  divided  between  two  parallel  members, 
and  the  rising  predicated  of  the  first  alone.  Tiowth's  version  of  the  last 
word,  shall  he  conspicuous,  is  vastly  inferior,  both  in  vigour  and  exactness, 
to  the  common  version.  Instead  of  upon  thee,  Noyes  has  orer  thee,  which 
givts  a  good  sense  in  itself,  but  not  an  adequate  one,  besides  gi-utuitously 
varying  the  translation  of  the  jtartide  in  one  short  sentence. 

.'».  And  nations  fhull  tiai'k  iu  thy  light,  mnl  kings  in  the  brightufss  of  thy 
rising,  i.  e.  thy  rising  brightness,  or  the  bright  light  which  shall  rise  upon 
thee.  The  common  Version,  to  thg  light,  may  seem  at  first  sight  more 
exact  than  the  one  here  given,  but  is  really  less  so.  The  Hebrew  preposi- 
tion /  does  not  correspond  to  our  to  as  a  particle  of  motion  or  direction. 


d 


Ver.  i.]  ISAIAH  LX.  881 

but  expresses  relation  in  the  widest  and  most  general  manner.  It  is  often 
therefore  interchanged  with  other  pnrticles,  and  to  among  the  rest,  but  is 
not  to  be  so  translated  here  or  in  an}-  other  case  without  necessity.  In  this 
case  it  seems  to  mean  that  they  shall  walk  with  reference  to  the  li^ht  in 
(Question,  which  in  English  may  be  best  expressed  by  in,  but  not  as  a  literal 
translation.  The  sense  thus  j'ielded  is  in  some  respects  better  than  the 
other,  as  suggesting  the  idea,  not  of  mere  attraction,  but  of  general  diffu- 
sion. By  light  we  are  then  to  understand  the  radiation  from  the  luminous 
centre,  and  not  merely  the  centre  itself.  This  explanation  of  the  verse  is 
given  by  the  best  of  the  modern  interpreters.  Some  of  these,  however, 
arbitrarily  apply  it  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile,  who  were  to 
be  accompanied  by  heathen  kings  as  their  guides  and  protectors.  As  a 
prophecy  this  never  was  fulfilled.  As  a  visionary  anticipation  it  could 
never  have  been  eutertained  by  a  contemporary  writer,  such  as  these  inter- 
preters suppose  the  author  of  the  book  to  be.  Those  who  with  J.  D. 
Michaelis  and  Henderson  apply  this  passage  exclusively  to  the  future 
restoration  of  the  Jews,  are  of  course  cut  off  from  all  historical  illustration 
of  its  meaning,  which  the  first  of  these  writers  therefore  properly  dispenses 
with.  The  allegation  of  the  other  that  his  own  position  is  the  only  one 
"  that  can  be  maintained  consistently  with  a  strict  adherence  to  definite 
principles  of  interpretation,"  may  be  denied  as  boldly  as  it  is  aliirmed. 
His  charge  of  "  a  perpetual  vacillancy  between  the  literal  and  the  spiritual, 
tht  Jews  and  the  Gentiles,  the  past  and  the  future,"  lies  only  against  those 
interpretations  which  regard  the  book  as  a  succession  of  specific  and 
detached  predictions.  If  our  hypothesis  be  true,  that  it  is  one  indivisible 
exhibition  of  the  church,  under  its  two  successive  phases,  and  in  its  essen- 
tial relations  to  its  Head  and  to  the  world,  the  objection  is  not  only 
inconclusive  but  absurd.  How  far  it  can  be  alleged  with  truth,  and  with- 
out bringing  the  Old  and  New  Testament  into  collision,  that  the  futm-e 
glory  of  the  Jewish  people  as  a  people  is  the  great  theme  of  these  pro- 
phecies, and  that  the  Gentiles  are  brought  forward  chiefly  for  the  purpose 
of  "  gi-acing  the  triumphs"  of  the  Jews,  will  be  seen  hereafter,  if  not 
evident  ahready.  In  the  mean  time  nothing  has  been  alleged  to  justify  the 
arbitrary  supposition  of  a  sudden  leap  from  one  subject  to  another,  scarcely 
more  "  satisfactory  "  than  a  "perpetual  vacillancy"  between  the  two. 

4.  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  ahout  (/.  e.  in  all  directions)  and  see ;  all  of 
them  are  (jatheretL  they  come  to  thee,  thy  sons  from  afar  shall  come,  and  thy 
dawjhters  at  the  side  shall  he  borne.  See  chap,  xliii.  5-7,  and  xlix.  18-23. 
The  English  Version  seems  to  suppose  an  antithesis  between  pin^D  and 
■'V""?y,  which  last  it  accordingly  translates  at  thy  side,  i.  e.  near  thee. 
Lowth  and  Henderson  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  oriental  practice,  described 
by  Chardin,  of  carrying  yoinig  children  astride  upon  the  hip.  The  latest 
writers  simply  give  to  "IV  the  sense  of  arm,  because  the  arm  is  at  the  side! 
The  primary  sense  of  |0N  seems  to  be  that  of  carrying,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  children.  Jerome  understands  it  to  mean  nursing,  in  the  sense  of 
giving  suck,  and  translates  the  phrase  before  us  lac  sxujmt,  which  has  been 
corrupted  in  the  Vulgate  text  to  ex  latere  surgent.  Grotius  needlessly 
infers  that  Jerome  read  T^'  instead  of  IV.  Those  who  confine  these 
prophecies  to  the  Babylonish  exile,  understand  this  as  describing  the 
agency  of  heathen  states  and  sovereigns  in  the  restoration.  But  in  this,  as 
in  the  parallel  passages,  there  is,  by  a  strange  coincidence,  no  word  or 
phrase  implying  restoration  or  return,  but  the  image  evidently  is  that  of 
enlargement  and  accession  ;  the  children  thus  brought  to  Zion^  heme  not 


882  ISAIAU  LX.  [Veb.  5. 

those  whom  she  had  lost,  but  snch  as  she  had  never  before  known,  as  is 
evidtnt  from  chap.  xlix.  21.  The  event  predit-tod  is  therefore  neither  the 
former  restoration  of  the  Jews,  as  Henderson  allej^es  in  the  other  cases,  nor 
their  future  restoration,  as  he  no  less  confidently  allcj^es  here.  The  two 
interpretations  are  both  {around less  and  destructive  of  each  other.  This 
jterpetual  insertion  of  ideas  not  expressed  in  the  original,  is  quite  as  un- 
reasonable as  Vitringa's  being  always  haunted  by  his  pliantom  of  a  chorus, 
which  he  here  sees  taking  Zion  by  the  hand,  consoling  her,  kc.  He  is 
also  of  opinion  that  by  diiughters  we  are  here  to  understand  weak  Christians 
who  require  peculiar  tt-ndenuss  from  ministers.  There  is  more  probability 
in  Knobel's  suggestion,  that  the  Prophet  made  his  picture  true  to  nature  by 
describing  the  sons  as  walking,  and  the  daughters  as  being  carried. 

5.  Then  shtilt  thou  see  (or  ft'nr),  ami  briijhtni  up  (or  uii'rjhu),  and  thy 
lifiirt  shall  throb  and  xwcll ;  becanse  (or  when)  the  abundance  of  the  sea  shall  be 
turned  upon  thee,  the  strencfth  of  nations  shall  come  unto  thee.  This  transla- 
tion exhibits  the  points  of  agreement  as  well  as  of  diflerence  among  inter- 
preters in  reference  to  this  verse.  All  iigree  that  it  describes  a  great  and 
jovful  change  to  be  produced  by  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  church 
or  chosen  people,  and  the  eflect  of  this  enlargement  on  the  latter.  Aben 
Ezra,  Lowth,  Vitringa,  J.  I).  Michaelis,  DiJderlein,  Justi,  Gesenius,  and 
Umbrcit,  derive  'iSTi.ri  from  t<!?),  to  fear,  and  apply  it  to  the  painful  sensation 
which  often  attends  sudden  joy,  and  which  is  certainly  described  in  the 
next  clause.  Nearly  all  the  later  writers  repeat  Lowth's  line  parallel  qao- 
tation  from  Lucretius : 

His  tibi  inc  icbiis  qu8D(lam  divina  volui>ta.s 
Ptrciiiit  atque  liorror. 

Above  sixty  manuscripts,  and  one  of  the  oldest  editions  (Bib.  Soucin), 
require  this  explanation,  by  reading  either  *NT?,  ^i^"}^,  or  'i<!)J?,  none  of 
which  can  regularly  come  from  HKT  to  see.  Yet  the  latter  derivation  is  not 
only  sanctioned  by  all  the  ancient  versions,  and  preferred  by  Kimchi,  but 
approved  by  Luther,  Clericus,  llosenmiiller,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Henderson, 
Ewald,  and  Knobel.  It  is  curious  to  see  how  the  parallelism  is  urged  on 
either  side  of  this  dispute,  and  that  with  equal  plausibility.  Thus  Vitringa 
thinks  that  thou  shall  see  would  be  a  vain  repetition  of  the  lift  up  thine  eyes 
and  see  in  ver.  4,  while  Knobel  describes  the  double  reference  to  fear  in  this 
verse  as  a  "  liistigo  Tautologie."  As  to  l^^i,  the  ditlicnlty  is  in  choosing 
between  its  two  admitted  senses  of  tlowiiig  (chap.  ii.  2),  and  of  shining  (Ps. 
xxxiv.  G).  The  former  is  preferred  by  Jerome,  who  translates  it  ajiturs:  by 
Junius  and  Tremellius,  who  have  covjlurs  ;  and  by  the  English  and  Dutch 
Versions,  the  latter  of  which  refers  it  to  the  confluence  of  crowds  produced 
by  any  strange  occurrence.  Vitringa  makes  it  mean  to  flow  out,  and  Lowth 
to  otcrflow  with  joy.  But  all  the  latest  writers  of  authority  give  the  word 
the  same  sense  as  in  Ps.  xxxiv.  0,  which  is  well  expressed  by  Henderson  in 
strong  though  homely  English,  thou  shalt  leak  and  briyhten  up.  His  ver- 
sion of  the  next  clause,  thy  heart  .-hall  throb  and  dilate,  may  be  improved 
by  changing  the  last  word,  which  he  took  from  Lowth,  to  the  equivalent 
but  plainer  twell. — "10?,  which  Lowih  rendein  rufjhd,  is  admitted  by  most 
writers  to  be  here  used  in  its  primary  sense  of  trembling,  which  in  reference 
to  the  heart  may  \n-  best  expressed  by  beating  or  throbbing.  But  tho 
usual  though  secondary  sen.so  of  fearing  is  retained  by  Lu/./atto,  who  regards 
it  as  descriptive  of  her  t.iror  at  the  sight  of  supposed  em  niies  npproacliing; 
and  by  Uendcwcxk,  who  applies  it  to  her  appreheubion  that  she  would  not 


Ver.  G.]  ISAIAU  LX.  3.SB 

have  sufficient  room  for  the  accommodation  of  the  strangers.  The  usual 
and  proper  sense  of  ''?  (for,  because)  is  perfectly  appropriate;  the  only 
reason  for  preferring  that  of  when,  as  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  others  do,  is 
its  apparent  relation  to  the  TX  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  as  if  he  had 
said,  when  the  abundance  of  the  sea,  &c.,  then  shalt  thou  see,  &c.  Accord- 
ing to  the  other  explanation  of  this  particle,  the  TN  refers  to  the  foregoing 
context.  Another  doubt  arises  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  nouns  X^'OTi  and 
/?n,  both  of  which  may  be  applied  cither  to  things  or  persons, — the  first 
denoting  sometimes  a  multitude  (chap.  xvii.  12),  sometimes  abundance 
(Ps.  xxxvii.  16)  ;  the  other  signifying  sometimes  a  military  force  (Exod. 
xiv.  28),  sometimes  wealth  (Gen.  xxxiv.  29).  As  in  cither  case  the  dif- 
ferent meanings  are  only  modiScations  of  one  radical  idea  (a  multitude  of 
persons  and  a  multitude  of  things,  a  military  force  and  pecuniary  force)  ; 
as  both  the  meanings  of  each  word  are  here  appropriate,  and  as  interpre- 
ters, whichever  meaning  they  prefer,  contrive  to  join  the  other  with  it, — wo 
may  safely  infer  that  it  was  also  the  intention  of  the  writer  to  convey  the 
whole  idea,  that  the  Gentiles  should  devote  themselves  and  their  possessions 
to  the  service  of  Jehovah.  (Compare  Zech.  xiv.  14.) — For  of  the  sea  J.  D. 
Michaelis  has/7-om  the  west;  and  other  writers  who  retain  the  strict  tr.ins- 
lation,  suppose  a  designed  antithesis  between  the  west  in  this  verse  and  the 
eastern  nations  mentioned  in  the  next.  The  conversion  here  predicted  has 
the  same  sense  as  in  English,  viz.,  the  conversion  of  the  property  of  one  to 
the  use  of  another.  Upon  can  hardly  be  a  simple  substitute  for  to,  but  is 
rather  intended  to  suggest  the  same  idea  as  when  we  speak  of  gifts  or 
favours  being  showered  or  lavished  on  a  person.  This  force  of  the  particle 
is  well  expressed  in  Lowth's  translation,  ivhen  the  riches  of  the  sea  shall  be 
poured  in  xipon  thee,  but  with  too  little  regard  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  verb.  The  next  clause  is  a  repetition  of  the  same  thought,  but 
without  a  figure.  If  this  had  reference  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from 
Babylon,  it  was  an  extravagant  anticipation  utterly  falsified  by  the  event. 
But  this,  although  it  may  commend  the  hypothesis  to  those  who  denv  the 
inspiration  of  the  Prophet,  is  itself  a  refutation  of  it  to  the  minds  of  those 
who  occupy  a  contrary  position.  The  most  natural  interpretation  of  the 
verse  is  that  which  makes  it  a  promise  of  indefinite  enlargement,  compre- 
hending both  the  persons  and  the  riches  of  the  nations.  There  is  somcthin"' 
amusing  at  the  present  day  in  Vitringa's  suggesting  as  a  difficulty  to  be 
cleared  away  from  the  interpretation  of  the  passage,  that  as  Christianity  is 
a  spiritual  religion  it  can  have  no  great  occasion  for  gold  or  silver.  Even 
literally  understood,  the  promise  is  intelligible  and  most  welcome  to  the 
philanthropic  Christian,  as  afibrding  means  for  the  difiusiou  of  the  truth 
and  the  conversit)n  of  the  world. 

6.  A  stream  of  camels  shall  cover  thee,  younri  camels  (or  dromedaries)  of 
Midian  and  Ephah,  all  of  them  from  Sheba  shall  come,  (fold  and  incense  shall 
they  bear,  and  the  jvaises  of  Jehovah  as  f/ood  news.  This  last  form  of  ex- 
pression is  adopted  in  order  to  convey  the  full  force  of  the  Hebrew  verb, 
which  does  not  mean  simply  to  announce  or  even  to  announce  with  joy,  but 
to  announce  glad  tidings.  (Sec  above,  on  chap.  xl.  9.)  Retaining  this 
sense  here,  the  word  would  seem  to  signify  not  the  direct  praise  of  God,  but 
the  announcement  of  the  fact  that  others  praised  him,  and  the  messengers 
would  be  described  as  bringing  to  Jerusalem  the  news  of  the  conversion  of 
their  people.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  primary  meaning  of  IJF? 
may  be  simply  to  announce,  as  in  chap.  Hi.  7,  1  Kings  i.  -12,  1  Sam.  iv.  17, 
2  Sam.  xviii.  20,  20,  and  that  the  derivation  given  by  Gesenius  is  fictitious. 


884  ISA  LIU  LX.  [Ver.  6. 

]}ut  in  no  caso  is  it  necessary,  witli  Vitringn.  to  exchange  the  settled  mean- 
ing of  niSiri  for  the  doubtful  one  of  praiseworthy  acts. — Ewald  has  greatly 
improved  upon  the  usual  translation  of  ny?w"  by  exchanging  multitude  for 
stream  or  (hod,  the  version  given  by  Jerome  {inundatt'o),  and  not  only  more 
exjiressive  than  the  other,  but  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  etymology, 
and  with  the  usage  of  the  noun  itself  in  Job  xxii.  11,  xxxviii.  84.  ^^^len 
applied  in  prose  to  a  drove  of  horses  (Ezek.  xx.  10)  or  a  troop  of  horsemen 
(2  Kings  ix.  17),  it  recpiircs  of  course  a  difl'ercnt  version.  This  explanation 
of  I^V?^"  throws  light  upon  the  phrase  shall  cover  thee,  a  term  elsewhere 
applied  to  water  {e.g.  chnp.  xi.  9),  and  suggesting  here  the  poetical  idea 
of  a  city  not  merely  thronged  but  flooded  with  Arabi:in  caravans.  This 
is  at  least  more  natural  than  Vitringa's  notion  that  the  camels  are  said 
to  cover  that  which  they  approach,  because  they  are  so  tall  that  they 
overtop  and  overshadow  it.  The  camel  has  been  always  so  peculiarly 
associated  with  the  Arabs  that  they  are  described  by  Sfrabo  as  ffx»]v/Va/ 
xa/xr,>.6/3o<rxo/.  They  are  here,  according  to  Isaiah's  practice,  represented 
bv  a  group  of  ancestral  names.  Epbah  was  the  eldest  son  of  Midian  (Gen. 
XXV.  •1\  who  was  himself  the  son  of  Abraham  by  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  2), 
and  the  brother  of  Jokshan  the  father  of  Sheba  (Gen.  xxv.  l-l).  The  first 
two  represent  nortbeni  and  central  Arabia,  the  third  Arabia  Ft-lix,  so  called 
bv  the  old  geographers  I  ecause  of  the  rich  products  which  is  furnished  to 
tiie  northern  traders,  either  from  its  own  resources  or  as  an  entrepot  of 
Indian  commerce.  The  tjueen  of  this  countrv-,  by  whom  Solomon  was 
visited,  brought  with  btr  gold,  gems,  and  spices  in  abundance  (1  Kings 
X.  2),  and  we  read  elsewhere  of  its  frankincense  (Jer.  vi.  20),  its  Phenician 
commerce  (Ezek.  xxvii.  20).  and  its  caravans  (Job  vi.  10),  while  those  of 
Midian  are  mentioned  even  in  the  patriarchal  historv  (Gen.  xxxvii.  2ft). 
iJochart  supposes  the  Midinn  of  this  passage  to  be  the  Madiene  of  Josephus 
and  the  Modion  of  Ptolemy,  and  identifies  Epbah  with  the  'Itto;  of  the 
Greek  geographers.  It  is  more  accordant  with  usage,  however,  to  explain 
them  as  the  names  of  the  national  progenitors,  representing  their  descend- 

jiuts. It  mattirs  little  whcthtr  (Inttncdarifs  or  t/niiiiii  aimels  be  the  true 

translation,  (For  the  arguments  on  both  sides  see  P.ocharfs  Hierozoicon, 
vol.  i.  p.  15,  with  Kosenmidler's  Note.)  The  former  is  preferable  only 
because  it  gives  us  a  distinct  name,  as  in  the  original,  which  is  perhaps  the 
reason  that  Gesenius  retains  it  in  his  Version  but  rejects  it  in  his  Com- 
mentary. Aben  Ezra  and  Snadiasmake  3  a  preposition  and  '13  the  plural 
of  13,  which  in  Gen.  xxxi.  81  denotes  a  litter  or  a  woman's  saddle  used  in 
riding  upon  camels. — The  verb  ^tOJ  does  not  agree  with  the  preceding 
noun,  as  the  camels  of  Midian  and  Ephah  could  not  come  from  Sheba,  bnt 
with  all  of  them,  which  may  either  be  indefinite,  *'  they  (i.  e.  men)  shall 
come  all  of  them.  '  or  more  specifically  signify  the  merchants  of  Sheba. 
:\Io6t  interpreters  agree  with  the  Targum  in  referring  the  last  v.-rb  (^l^?') 
to  the  men  who  onie  with  the  camels  and  the  gifts ;  but  as  -INV"'  properly 
denotes  the  act  of  the  animals  themselves,  it  is  not  without  a  show  of  reason 
that  Vitringa  constnu'S  the  other  verb  in  the  same  manner,  and  supposes 
the  camels  by  tlu-ir  very  burdens  to  praise  God  or  ratlur  to  announce  the 
disposition  oithese  tribes  to  praise  bitii.  This  is  rendered  still  more  probable 
by  the  analopv  of  the  next  verse,  where  kindred  acts  ai'penr  to  be  ascribed 
to  other  animals. — It  is  a  conmion  opinion  of  interjmters  that  tbis  verse 
represents  the  east  as  joining  in  the  acts  of  homage  and  of  tribute  which 
the  one  before  it  had  ascribed  to  the  west ;  but  it  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  this  distinctive  meaning  can  be  put  upon  the  terms  sea  and  miiions 


Yer.  7.]  ISAIAH  LX.  385 

there  employed,  and  the  antithesis  would  hardly  be  in  keeping  with  another 
which  appeurs  to  be  designed  between  these  two  verses  and  the  eighth,  as 
will  be  explained  below. 

7.  A'l  the  flocks  of  Kedar  shall  be  gathered  for  thee,  the  rams  nf  Nehaioth 
shall  minister  to  thee,  they  shall  ascend  with  good-will  (or  ucceptahhj)  my 
altar,  and  my  house  of  beauty  I  will  beautify.  To  the  traders  of  Arabia 
with  their  caravans  and  precious  wares  he  now  adds  her  shepherds  with 
their  countless  flocks.  While  Kimchi  explains  all  as  meaning  many,  and 
Kiiobel  all  kinds,  Yitringa  insists  upon  the  strict  sense  as  an  essential  fea- 
ture of  the  prophecy.  Kedar,  the  second  son  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  13), 
who  represents  Arabia  in  chap.  xxi.  IG,  and  xlii.  11,  is  here  joined  for  the 
same  purpose  with  his  elder  brother  Nehaioth,  obviously  identical  with  the 
Nahataei,  the  name  given  to  the  people  of  Arabia  Petraca  by  Strabo  and 
Diodorus  Siculus,  who  represent  them  as  possessed  of  no  wealth  except 
ilocks  and  herds,  in  which  they  were  extremely  rich.  Ezekiel  also  speaks 
of  Tyre  as  trading  with  Arabia  and  all  the  chiefs  of  Kedar  in  laynbs  and 
rams  and  goats.  (Ezek.  xxvii.  21.)  These  are  here  described  as  gathered 
in  one  vast  flock  to  Jerusalem,  or  rather /or  her,  i.  e.  for  her  use  or  service, 
which  agrees  best  with  what  follows,  and  with  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  pre- 
position. They  are  then,  by  a  bold  and  striking  figure,  represented  as 
offering  themselves,  which  is  first  expressed  by  the  general  term  serve  or 
minister,  and  then  more  unequivocally  by  declaring  that  they  shall  them- 
selves ascend  the  altar.  Kimchi  endeavours  to  get  rid  of  this  bold  meta- 
phor by  introducing  with  before  the  rams  nf  Nehaioth,  and  referring  both 
verbs  to  the  people  themselves  :  ( With)  the  rams  of  Nebaioth  shall  they  serve 
thee,  and  cav^e  (them)  to  ascend,  &c.  But  the  common  judgment  of  inter- 
preters is  in  iiivour  of  explaining  the  words  strictly,  and  retaining  the  un- 
usual figure  unimpaired.  They  are  not  disposed,  however,  to  go  all  lengths 
with  Yitringa,  who  supposes  the  rams  to  be  personified  as  priests  offering 
themselves  upon  the  altar. — The  ascent  of  the  victim  on  the  altar  is  repeat- 
edly connected  elsewhere  with  the  phrase  11^^?,  to  acceptance  or  acceptably. 
(See  above,  chap.  hi.  7,  and  Jer.  vi.  20.)     But  in  this  one  place  we  have 

the  phrase  P^T-'V.  as  il"  the  last  noun  had  usurped  the  place  of  altar,  which 
immediately  follows.  Of  this  unusual  construction  there  are  several  dis- 
tinct explanations.  Kimchi  regards  it  as  a  case  of  yi^V  or  metathesis, 
which  may  be  thus  resolved  :  '•him  7]}  \))i'h  V?V\  Gesenins  obtains  pre- 
cisely the  same  meaning  by  explaining  ^n?|P  as  an  accusative  after  a  verb 
of  motion,  and  making  11^7"''^'  <''•  simple  variation  of  the  common  phrase 
'O'iy..  Hitzig  and  Henderson  adopt  the  same  construction,  but  suppose  the 
two  phrases  to  bo  diflerent  in  sense  as  well  as  form,  |i^^^  meaning  to  (divine) 
acceptance,  P^'T^V  with  good-will  or  complacency.  The  phrase  then  only 
serves  to  strengthen  the  description  of  the  victims  as  spontaneously  ofler- 
ing  themselves,  an  idea  which  Lowth  finally,  but  perhaps  too  artificially, 
illustrates  by  citations  from  Suetonius  and  Tacitus,  shewing  that  the  ancients 
viewed  reluctance  in  the  victims  as  an  evil  omen,  and  by  parity  of  reason- 
ing the  appearance  of  spontaneous  self-devotion  as  a  good  one. — In  the 
last  clause,  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ^J!!^^?'^  ri'S  is  determined  by  the 
parallel  expressions  in  chap.  Ixiv.  10,  where  the  suffix  necessarily  belongs 
to  the  governing  word,  or  rather  to  the  whole  complex  phrase,  and  the  whole 
means,  not  the  house  of  our  holiness  and  our  beauty,  but  our  hcuse  of  holiness 
and  beauty,  or  resolved  into  the  occidental  idiom,  our  holy  and  our  beautiful 

VOL.  II,  B  b 


88G  ISAIAH  LX.  [Veb.  8. 

house,  which  is  the  common  Enghsh  version.  Tho  LXX  have  here  mi/ 
house  of  prayer,  as  in  chap.  hi.  7  ;  and  Hitzig  regards  tliis  as  the  gcnuiuo 
reading,  though  ho  does  not  adopt  it  in  his  Giin.an  version.  His  itason 
for  this  critical  decision  is  a  very  insufficient  one,  viz.  that  God  is  nowhere 
else  said  to  glory  in  the  temple,  which  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  common 
text,  n^{<?J|1  heing  here  used  in  its  primary  and  ordinary  sense  of  liauhj, 
as  appears  from  its  conjunction  with  the  vcrh  "ISD,  which,  iu  (his  connec- 
tion, even  upon  Hitzig's  own  hypothesis,  must  mean  to  hiatitify. — Grotius 
supposes  this  prediction  to  have  been  hterally  veritied  in  Herod's  temple. 
Gesenius  and  the  other  Germans  easily  dispose  of  it  as  a  fanatical  antici- 
pation. It  is  much  more  embarrassing  to  those  who  make  the  passage  a 
prediction  of  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews,  nnd  the  future  splendour 
of  the  literal  Jerusalem.  Some  of  the  most  intrepid  writers  of  this  class 
consistently  apply  their  fundamental  principle  of  literal  interpretation,  ai;d 
believe  that  the  Mosaic  ritual  or  stmtthing  like  it  is  to  be  restored.  But 
such  interpreters  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Henderson,  who  cannot  go  to  this 
length,  are  obliged  to  own  that  spiiitual  services  are  here  represented  under 
forms  and  titles  boriowed  from  the  old  dispensation.  "Whatever  tho 
descendants  of  those  oriental  tiibes  may  possess  shall  be  cheeifu'Iy  place d 

at  the  disposal  of  the  restored  Jews There  f-hall  be  no  want  of 

anything  that  is  required  for  the  full  restoratit.n  of  divine  worship,  wlun 
the  mosque  of  Omar  thall  give  place  to  a  new  temple  to  be  erected  for  tho 
celebration  of  the  services  of  that  minit-tration  which  excecdeth  in  g'ory. 
2  Cor.  iii.  8-11."  This  is  tho  "literal  interpretation"  of  a  school  which 
will  not  allow  Israel  to  mean  the  ihurch  or  chosen  people  as  such  con- 
sidered, but  insists  upon  its  meaning  the  nation  of  the  Jews  !  The  picture 
which  this  interpretation  makes  the  Proj  het  draw  may  well  be  called  a 
mi.xed  one,  consisting  of  a  literal  Jerusalt  m,  lit(  ral  caravans  and  camels, 
but  a  figurative  altar,  figurative  victims,  and  a  m&terial  temple  to  be  bu  It 
upon  the  site  of  the  old  one  for  a  spiritual  worship  exclusive  of  the  very 
rites  which  it  is  here  predicted  shall  be  solemnly  performed  there.  Of  such 
a  figment  upon  such  a  subject  we  may  say,  with  moro  than  ordinary  em- 
phasis, and  even  with  a  double  sense,  Crcdut  Jmlosus  !  On  the  other  baud, 
the  prophecy  explains  itself  to  those  who  believe  that  tlie  ancient  Israel  is 
still  in  existence,  and  that  the  Jews  as  a  nation  form  no  part  of  it.  Tho 
charge  of  mystical  or  allegorical  interpretation  does  not  lie  apainst  this 
view  of  the  matter,  but  against  Yitiingn's  needless  and  fantastic  addition  to 
his  real  exegesis  of  a  set  of  riddles  or  enigmas,  in  which  he  puzzles  both 
his  readers  and  himself  by  att(  mpting  to  determine  whether  camels  mean 
laborious  and  patient  Christians,  rams  stnng  ones,  sheep  those  faltemd 
by  the  word  and  clothed  in  the  white  wcol  of  holiness,  &c.  To  ai  y  I  ut 
Yilringa  himself  it  must  bo  difficult  to  see  in  what  respect  all  this  is  any 
letter  than  the  notion  f e  r  which  he  reproves  Eusebius,  Jeremo,  ind  Pro- 
copius,  that  camels  here  mean  rich  men,  as  in  Mat.  xix.  24.  And  yet  after 
saying  in  regard  to  these  erring  Fathers,  vilavdo  vU'gne  BViit  in  avjJirutio- 
nilus  viysticis  d/.Xcya^,  he  adds  with  great  compli  cency,  vostnr  raiii  tics  liic 
stmt  liqiiiJcr !  If  any  j  re  of  were  needed  of  the  lisk  attending  the  adn  is- 
sion  of  a  false  cxcget  cal  principle,  hewever  hnimless  in  appcRrnnre,  it 
would  lo  affijrded  by  these  melancholy  Irifiinps  en  the  [mrt  (.f  cnc  of  tho 
most  able,  leained,  eirthodcx,  dev(.ut,  nccomjlishcd,  aid,  with  this  excep- 
tion, sensible  interpreters  of  Scripture,  that  the  world  has  ever  seen  or  cim 
expect  to  SCO  again. 

8.   ir/jc»  are  iheie  that  fly  as  a  duxid  and  as  dorcs  to  thtir  uindouA  t     It  iB 


Ver.  9.]  ISAIAH  LX.  387 

a  fine  conception  ofVitringa,  that  the  ships  expressly  mentioned  in  tho 
next  verse  are  here  described  in  their  first  appearance  at  a  distance  resem- 
bling with  their  outspread  sails  and  rapid  course  a  fleecy  cloud  driven  by 
the  N\in(l,  and  a  flight  of  doves  returning  to  their  young.  Both  compari- 
sons are  elsewhere  used  as  here  to  indicate  rapidity  of  motion.  (Job  xxx.  15, 
Ps.  Iv.  7,  Hos.  xi.  11,  Jer.  iv.  13.)  Much  less  felicitous  isVitriuga's  idea 
that  the  image  here  presented  is  that  of  a  prophetic  chorus  standing  with 
the  church  on  tho  roof  of  the  city,  and  asked  by  her,  or  asking,  what  it  is 
they  see  approaching.  Hoiibigant's  emendation  of  the  text  by  reading 
pn^mpx,  though  approved  by  Lowth  and  even  improved  by  the  change  of 
^^  to  pV  on  the  authority  of  more  than  forty  manuscripts,  so  as  to  admit 
of  the  translation  li/ce  doves  upon  (he  loing,  is  justly  characterized  by  Gesenius 
as  an  "  elende  Conjeetnr."  The  common  text  means  lattices  or  latticed 
windows,  either  of  which  is  better  than  Henderson's  translation  holes,  though 
even  this  is  preferable  to  the  vague  and  weak  term  habitations  used  by 
Noyes. 

9.  Because  for  me  the  isles  are  ivaiting  {or  must  wait),  and  the  shij^s  of 
Tarshish  in  the  first  place,  to  bring  thy  sons  from  far,  their  silver  and  their 
gold  with  them  for  the  name  of  Jehovah  thy  God,  and  for  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  because  he  has  glorified  thee.  This  verse  contains  a  virtual  though 
not  a  formal  answer  to  the  question  in  the  one  before  it.  As  if  he  had 
said,  Wonder  not  that  these  are  seen  approaching,  for  the  whole  world  is 
onl}'  awaiting  my  command  to  bring  thy  sons,  &;c.  This  view  of  the  con- 
nection makes  it  wholly  unnecessary  to  give  '?  the  sense  of  surely,  yes,  or 
any  other  than  its  usual  and  proper  one  of  for,  because.  For  the  true 
sense  of  •Vlf'*,  see  above  on  chap.  xlii.  4,  and  for  ships  of  Tarshish,  vol.  i. 
p.  394.  Luzzatto  here  gratuitously  reads  "nf^!  let  them  be  gathered,  which 
is  applied  to  a  confluence  of  nations  in  Jer.  iii.  17.  The  Septuagint,  which 
elsewhere  explains  Tarshish  to  mean  the  sea,  here  retains  the  name  ;  but 
the  Vulgate  even  here  has  naves  maris.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  the  ships  of 
Spain.  Jarchi  and  Kimchi  supply  3  before  n3^K~l3,  and  explain  it  to 
mean  as  at  first,  or  as  of  old,  referring  to  the  days  of  Solomon  and  Hiram. 
This  reading  is  actually  found  in  twenty-five  manuscripts,  and  sanctioned 
by  the  Peshito  ;  but  even  Lowth  retains  the  common  text.  The  Hebrew 
phrase  is  generally  understood  to  mean  in  the  first  rank  either  as  to  time 
or  place.  (Compare  Num.  x.  13,  14.)  Both  may  be  included,  as  they 
really  imply  one  another.  The  pronoun  their  may  have  for  its  antecedent 
either  sons  or  ishoids ;  but  the  former,  as  the  nearer,  is  more  natural. 
The  last  clause  is  repeated  from  chap,  Iv,  5,  where  ])}v?  takes  the  place 
of  the  first  7  and  determines  it  to  mean  not  to  but /or.  There  is  no  need 
therefore  of  explaining  nivne  to  mean  the  place  where  the  divine  name  was 
recorded.  J.  D.  Michaelis  still  declines  to  say  in  what  precise  form  this 
prediction  is  to  be  fulfilled  ;  but  Henderson,  less  cautious  or  more  con- 
fident, affirms  that  the  propert}'  of  the  Jews  as  well  as  themselves  shall  be 
conveyed  free  of  charge  to  Palestine,  adding  that  many  of  them  resident  in 
distant  parts  can  only  conveniently  return  by  sea.  The  principle  involved 
in  this  interpretation  is,  that  we  have  no  right  to  make  the  Zion  here  ad- 
dressed any  other  than  the  literal  Jerusalem,  or  the  ships,  the  silver,  and 
the  gold,  any  other  than  literal  silver,  gold,  and  ships.  This  rale,  to  be  of 
any  practical  avail,  must  apply  to  all  parts  of  the  passage,  and  especially  to 
all  parts  of  the  verse  alike,  without  which  uniformity  interpretation  be- 
comes wholly  arbitrary  or  mere  guess-work.  It  is  an  interesting  question, 
therefore,  what  we  are  to  understand  in  this  connection  by  the  ships  of 


888  ISAIAH  LX.  [Ver.  10. 

Tarshish,  to  which  such  extraordinary  prominence  is  given  in  the  work  of 
restoration.  As  to  this  poiot,  Henderson  refers  us  to  l,is  note  on  chap, 
xxiii.  10,  where  we  read  as  follows  :  "  By  Tarshish  there  can  no  longer  be 
any  reasonable  doubt  we  are  to  understand  Tar;cssus,  the  ancient  and  cele- 
brated emporium  of  the  Phenicians,  situated  between  the  two  mouths  of 
the  river  Baetis  (now  Guadalquivcr)  on  the  south-western  coast  of  Spain." 
Are  we  to  understand  then  that  the  vessels  of  this  part  of  Spain  are  to  be 
foremost  in  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  just  as  the  desccndnnts 
of  the  ancient  Kedar,  Ephah,  and  Sheba,  are  to  place  their  possessions  at 
the  disposal  of  the  restored  Jews  ?  If  so,  this  meaning  should  have  been 
distinctly  stated,  as  it  partly  is  by  Michaelis  in  translating  Tarshish  Spain. 
If  not,  and  if  as  we  suspect  the  ships  of  Tarshish  are  secretly  identified 
with  the  commercial  navy  of  Great  Britain  and  perhaps  America,  we  then 
have  another  medley  like  that  in  ver.  7,  but  in  this  case  consisting  of  a 
literal  return  to  the  literal  Jerusalem  in  literal  ships  but  belonging  to  a 
figurative  Tarshish.  In  these  repeated  instances  of  mixed  intei-pretation 
there  is  soyaething  like  a  vacillancy  between  the  literal  and  the  spiritual, 
which  is  any  thing  but  satisfactory.  To  the  assumption  that  commercial 
intercourse  and  navigation  are  here  represented  under  forms  and  names 
derived  from  the  Old  Testament  history,  I  am  so  far  from  objecting,  that 
I  wish  to  apply  it  to  the  whole  pi'ediction,  and  to  use  precisely  the  same 
liberty  in  understanding  what  is  said  of  Zion  and  her  sons,  as  in  under- 
standing what  is  said  of  Tarshish  and  her  ships.  Let  it  also  be  added  to 
the  cumulative  proofs  already  urged  in  favour  of  our  own  hypothesis,  that 
here,  as  in  so  many  former  instances,  the  writer  docs  not  even  accidentally 
use  any  term  explicitly  denoting  restoration  or  return,  but  only  such  as  are 
appropriate  to  mere  accession  and  increase  ab  extra.  It  cannot  therefore 
be  absurd,  even  if  it  is  erroneous  to  apply  what  is  here  said,  with  Yitringa, 
to  the  growth  of  the  true  Israel  or  chosen  people  by  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles,  with  particular  allusion  to  the  wealth  of  the  commercial  nations, 
from  among  whom  the  elect  of  God,  the  sons  of  Zion,  when  they  come  to 
the  embraces  of  their  unknown  mother,  shall  come  bringing  their  silver  and 
gold  with  them. 

10.  And  stnniqrrs  shall  build  fhy  tralh,  and  their  kiitqs  shall  scrrr  thee  ; 
for  in  tnt/  trrath  I  smote  thee,  and  in  nii/  favour  I  hare  had  mercy  on  thee. 
For  the  true  sense  of  the  phrase "i3r*J?,  Fee  above  on  chap.  hi.  8  ;  and  with 
the  last  clause  compare  chap.  liv.  7,  8.  The  '3  relates  to  the  whole  of  that 
clause  taken  together,  not  to  the  first  member  by  itself.  It  was  not  because 
God  had  been  angry,  but  because  he  had  been  angry  and  relented,  that 
they  Were  to  be  thus  favoured.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  2G8.)  There  is  no  need, 
however,  of  substituting  an  involved  occidental  syntax  for  the  simple  Hebrew 
construction,  ns  Yitringa  and  llosenmiiller  do,  by  reading,  "  for  although 
in  my  wnith  I  may  have  smitten  thee,"  kc.  The  English  version  of  the 
last  verb  '\\\  tlie  sentence  is  correct.  Lowth's  emendation  of  it,  in  which 
he  is  followed  by  Henderson  and  Noyes,  is  wholly  nngranimatical,  since  the 
preceding  verb  is  not  a  future  but  a  jjretcrite.  The  change  is  also  need- 
less, since  the  mercy  is  described  as  past,  not  in  reference  to  the  date  of 
the  prediction,  but  of  its  fultillment.  There  is  something  at  once  inexact 
and  mawkish  in  Lowth's  paraphrase  of  this  verb.  I  uill  embrace  thee  with 
the  most  tender  (ijl'tclian.  If  any  departure  from  the  usual  translation  were 
required  or  admissible,  the  preference  would  be  due  to  Ewald's  version 
(lieb  ich  (fich  wicder). — Eichhorn  supposed  the  expectation  here  expressed 
to  have  been  excited    by  the  benefactions  of  the  Persian  kings  to  the  re- 


Veb.  11. J  ISAIAH  LX.  389 

stored  Jews  (Ezra  i.  8,  vi.  8,  9) ;  but  even  Gesenius  regards  the  dale  thus 
assigned  to  the  prediction  as  too  late.  Knobel  applies  the  text  to  the 
neighbouring  heathen,  called  'i?r\^?  by  Nehemiah  (chap.  ix.  2 ;  comp.  Ps. 
xviii.  45,  cxliv.  7,  11),  who  were  to  be  driven  from  the  lands  upon  which 
they  had  intruded  during  the  captivity,  and  reduced  to  bondage  by  the  re- 
store! Jews.  Henderson's  explanation  of  the  verse  as  meaning  that 
foreigners  shall  count  it  an  honour  to  be  employed  in  rebuilding  Jerusalem 
and  "  in  any  way  contributing  to  the  recovery  of  the  lost  happiness  of  Is- 
rael, and  that  even  monarchs  shall  regard  it  as  a  privilege  to  aid  in  the 
work  by  employing  whatever  legitimate  inlluence  they  may  possess  in  ad- 
vancing it,"  is  hardly  a  fair  specimen  of  strictly  literal  interpretation,  but 
rather  an  insensible  approximation  to  the  old  opinion,  as  expressed  by  Vit- 
ringa,  that  the  Prophet  here  foretells  the  agency  of  strangers  or  new  con- 
verts in  promoting  the  safety  and  prosperity  of  Israel,  under  figures  borrowed 
from  the  old  economy,  and  implying  a  vicissitude  or  alternation  of  distress 
and  joy,  such  as  Isaiah  frequently  exhibits.  The  building  of  the  walls 
here  mentioned  is  the  same  as  that  in  Ps.  li.  20,  and  cxlvii.  2,  where  it 
is  no  more  to  be  literally  understood  than  the  captivity  of  Zion  in  Ps. 
xiv.  7,  or  that  of  Job  in  chap,  xlii.  10.  (See  Hengstenberg  on  the  Psalms, 
vol.  i.  p.  291.) 

11.  And  thy  gates  shall  be  open  continually,  day  and  night  they  shall  not 
be  shut,  to  bring  into  thee  the  straigth  of  nations  and  their  kings  led  {captive 
or  ui  triumph).  According  to  Hitzig  there  is  here  a  resumption  of  the 
figures  in  ver.  6,  and  the  gates  are  represented  as  kept  open  day  and  night 
by  the  perpetual  influx  of  Arabian  caravans.  But  without  going  back  to 
the  peculiar  imagery  of  that  verse,  we  may  understand  the  one  before  us 
as  relating  to  the  influx  of  strangers  and  new  converts  generally.  The  two 
ideas  expressed  are  those  of  unobstructed  access  and  undisturbed  tranquillity. 
The  use  of  -inJilS  is  the  same  as  in  chap,  xlviii.  8,  nearly  but  not  entirely 
coincident  with  that. of  the  corresponding  verb  in  English,  when  we  speak 
of  a  door's  opening  instead  of  being  opened.  The  diflerence  is  simply  that 
between  the  descrii)tiou  of  a  momentary  act,  and  of  a  permanent  condition. 
The  intransitive  construction  is  in  cither  case  the  same.  Upon  this  verse, 
perhaps  combined  with  Zech.  xiv.  7,  is  founded  that  beautiful  and  grand 
description,  the  gates  of  it  shall  not  be  shut  at  all  by  day,  for  there  shall  be 
no  night  there  (Rev.  xxi.  25),  of  which  A^itringa  speaks  as  an  inspired  ex- 
position of  the  verse  before  us,  while  Henderson  says  more  correctly  that 
the  apostle  "  borrows  the  language  in  his  description  of  the  New  Jerusa- 
lem."— ^^n  has  the  same  ambiguity  or  latitude  of  meaning  as  in  ver.  5, 
above.  The  sense  of  wealth  or  treasure  is  preferred  by  most  of  the  late 
writers,  but  Rosenmiiller  has  exercitm.  Better  than  either,  because  com- 
prehending both,  is  Vitringa's  version  copia,  to  which  we  have  no  exact 
equivalent  in  English. — Vitringa  and  Rosenmiiller  follow  Kimchi  in  ex- 
plaining D''i"in^  to  mean  escorted,  led  in  procession,  or,  as  Lowth  has  it, 
pompously  attended,  which  they  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  verb  in  Nah. 
ii.  8.  But  as  that  place  is  itself  obscure  and  doubtful,  and  as  the  verb  is 
clearly  employed  elsewhere  to  express  the  act  of  leading  captive  (chap. 
XX.  4  ;  1  Sam.  xxx.  2),  several  of  the  later  writers  have  reverted  to  this 
explanation,  which  is  also  given  in  the  Targum  (ri?''i?I)  and  by  Aben  Ezra, 
and  agrees  with  chap.  xiv.  14  (compare  Ps.  cxlix.  8).  Gesenius  in  his 
Commentary  charges  Koppe  with  omitting  to  observe  that  this  sense  is  at 
variance  with  the  idea  of  voluntary  adliesion  expressed  throughout  the 
context ;  but  in  his  Thesaurus  he  adopts  this  very  explanation,  without 


890  ISAIAir  LX.  [\er.  12,  ]3. 

attempting  to  refute  bis  own  objection.  Hitzig's  solution  of  i*.  is  tbat  the 
nations  are  described  as  coming  to  Jerusalem  en  masse,  and  bringing  their 
reluctant  kings  in  chains  along  with  them.  Knobel  proposes  an  ei-tirely 
new  explanation,  in  which  D^3^n^  is  to  have  an  active  meanin;»  (like  K*1p* 
and  ^1^K  j,  and  to  be  translated  leaders  ;  but  if  ever  the  invention  of  a  new 
sense  was  without  the  faintest  colour  of  necessity,  it  is  so  Iiere.  The 
gencrnl  moaning  no  doubt  is  thut  earthly  sovereigns  must  unite  in  this 
adhesion  to  the  true  religion,  either  willingly  or  by  compulsion.  The  dif- 
ferent impressions  made  by  such  a  passage  on  intelligent  interpreters, 
according  to  their  several  In'pothoscs  or  previous  conclusions,  may  bo 
shewn  by  comparing  the  remarks  of  Henderson  and  Unibr.  it  upon  this 
verse.  While  the  latter  confidently  asks  who  can  here  f»il  to  rend  tho 
daily  progress  of  God's  kingdom  by  accretion  from  tho  Gentiles,  in  which 
sense  tlie  doors  of  Zion  are  still  open,  kings  and  nations  streaming  in  by 
day  and  night,  the  other  gravely  observes  that  "  modern  travellers  greatly 
complain  of  the  inconvenience  to  which  they  are  put,  when  they  do  not 
reach  Jerusalem  before  the  gates  are  closed."  Tliis  is  either  nothing  to 
the  purpose  or  implies  that  the  blessing  promised  in  the  text  is  a  more 
convenient  regulation  of  the  gate-police  after  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  ! 

12.  For  the  nation  and  the  kingdom  which  tcill  not  serve  thee  shall  perish, 
and  the  nations  shall  be  desolated,  desolated.  Similar  threatenings  are  found 
in  Zech.  x.  1,  xii.  1,  and  xiv.  17,  in  the  last  of  which  places  there  is  a 
specific  threat  of  drought,  as  the  appointed  punishment.  This  has  led 
Hitzig  and  some  later  writers  to  explain  the  last  verb  here  as  meaning  to 
be  utterly  dried  up  or  parched.  But  in  chap,  xxxvii.  18,  above,  it  is 
applied  to  nations  in  the  general  sense  of  desolation.  The /or  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  verse  is  commonly  explained  as  introducing  a  reason  for  the 
confluence  of  strangers  just  before  predicted,  namely,  the  desire  of  escaping 
this  destruction  ;  but  it  may  as  well  be  understood  to  give  a  reason  for  the 
promise  of  increase  in  general.  The  gates  of  Zion  shall  be  crowded,  because 
all  shall  enter  into  them  but  those  who  are  to  perish.  The  nations  in  tho 
last  clause  may  mean  the  nations  just  described,  or,  as  the  common  version 
expresses  it,  those  nations.  But  it  may  also  mean,  perhaps  more  naturally, 
those  who  still  continue  to  be  Gentiles,  heathen,  by  refusing  to  unite  them- 
selves with  Israel. — The  threatening  in  this  vcr.se  is  a  very  serious  one, 
however  understood  ;  but  it  is  also  very  strange  and  unaccountable  if  un- 
derstood as  meaning  that  all  nations  shall  he  utterly  destroyed  which  will 
not  servo  the  Jews  when  restored  to  their  own  country.  Even  if  we  give 
to  serve  the  mitigated  sense  of  shewing  favour  and  assisting,  there  is  still 
something  almost  revolting  in  the  penalty  annexed  to  the  omission  ;  how 
much  more  if  wo  understand  it  as  deno'.ing  actual  subjection  and  hard 
bondage.  It  is  no  wonder  that  a  writer  so  acute  as  Henderson  is  forced 
by  the  pressure  of  this  diflicidty  on  his  theory  to  seek  for  a  "  meiosis"  in 
tho  sentence,  and  to  understand  the  threatening  as  directed  only  against 
those  who  are  chargeable  with  "  positive  hostility,"  a  forced  assumption 
not  to  be  supported  by  a  reference  to  Judges  v.  23.  The  whole  is  rendered 
clear  by  the  assumption,  not  got  up  for  tlie  occasion,  but  resulting  from  an 
extensive  cxcgetical  induction,  that  the  threatening  was  intended  to  apply, 
in  its  most  obvious  and  strongest  sense,  to  all  those  nations  which  refuse 
to  be  connected  with  the  church  or  Israel  of  God. 

13.  The  qlori/  of  /jtbanon  to  thee  shall  come,  ct/press,  plane,  and  box  to- 
ff ether,  to  adorn  the  place  of  my  sanctuary,  and  the  place  of  my  feet  I  will 
honour.     The  glory  of  Lebanon  is  its  cedars.     For  tho  other  trees  here 


Ver.  14.]  ISAIAH  LX.  891 

mentioned,  see  above,  on  chap.  xli.  19,  where,  as  here,  they  are  merely 
representatives  of  ornamental  forest-trees  in  general.  The  place  of  my 
sanctuary  has  been  generally  understood  to  mean  the  sanctuary  itself;  but 
several  of  the  latest  writers  understand  by  it  Jerusalem,  as  being  the  place 
■where  the  temple  was  erected.  The  same  sense  is  put  by  Maurer  and 
others  on  lite  place  of  my  feet,  that  is,  the  place  where  I  habitually  stand 
or  walk.  (Ezek.  xliii.  7.)  Yitringa  and  the  older  writers  generally  seem 
to  understand  by  it  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  considered  as  the  footstool  of 
Jehovah  (1  Chron.  xxviii.  2  ;  Ps.  xcix.  5,  cxxxii.  7),  when  enthroned  between 
the  cherubim  (chap,  xxxvii.  16;  Ps.  Ixxx.  2.)  In  favour  of  the  wider  sense  is 
the  analogy  of  chap.  Ixvi.  2,  where  the  same  description  is  applied  to  the 
whole  earth,  but  in  reference  to  heaven  as  the  throne  of  God. — Another 
topic  upon  which  interpreters  have  been  divided,  is  the  question  whether 
the  adorning  mentioned  here  is  that  of  cultivated  grounds  by  living  trees, 
or  that  of  buildings  by  the  use  of  the  choicest  kinds  of  timber.  The  latter 
opinion  has  most  commonly  prevailed ;  but  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Knobel, 
are  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  other,  which  is  far  more  pleasing  in  itself  and 
more  in  keeping  with  the  poetical  tone  of  the  whole  context.  In  either  case 
the  meaning  of  the  figure  is  that  the  earthly  residence  of  God  shall  be 
invested  wiih  the  most  attractive  forms  of  beauty.  Even  Grotius,  as  Vitringa 
hns  observed,  was  ashamed  to  rest  in  the  material  sense  of  this  description, 
and  has  mailc  it  so  far  tropical  as  to  denote  the  conquest  of  many  parts  of 
Syria  by  the  Jews.  But  Henderson  goes  back  to  ground  which  even 
Grotins  could  not  occupy,  and  understands  the  verse  not  only  of  material 
trees  but  of  material  timber.  "  A  literal  temple  or  house  of  worship  being 
intended,  (lie  lonyuage  must  be  literally  understood."  But  why  are  lite- 
ral trees  more  indispensable  in  this  case  than  literal  sheep  and  rams  and  a 
literal  altar  in  ver.  7,  or  than  literal  ships  of  Tarshish  inver.  9?  This  perpetual 
vacillancy  between  the  literal  and  the  spiritual  is  anything  but  satisfactory. 
"From  all  that  appears  to  be  the  state  of  Palestine  in  regard  to  wood,  sup- 
plies from  Lebanon  will  be  as  necessary  as  they  were  when  the  ancient  temple 
was  constructed."  With  this  may  be  worthily  compared  the  use  of  the 
same  text  to  justify  the  "dressing  of  chnrches"  at  the  festival  of  Christmas. 
14.  T/ien  sJiall  come  to  thee  hemlinj  the  sons  of  thy  oppressors,  then  shall 
bow  doivn  to  the  soles  of  thy  feet  all  thy  despiiers,  and  shall  call  thee  the  City 
of  Jehovah,  Zion  the  holy  place  of  Israel  (or  the  Zion  of  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel).  For  the  same  ideas  and  expressions,  see  above,  chap.  xlv.  14,  and 
xlix.  23.  The  ^V.  before  ^'"123  is  not  simply  equivalent  to  at,  but  expresses 
downward  motion,  and  may  be  translated  doivn  to.  The  act  described  is 
the  oriental  prostration  as  a  sign  of  the  profoundest  reverence.  The  Vul- 
gate makes  the  sense  still  stronger,  and  indeed  too  strong,  by  attaching  to 
the  verb  a  religious  meaning,  and  regarding  rilQS  as  its  object  {ndorahunt 
vestic/ia  pedum  tuorum).  The  sons  are  mentioned  either  for  the  pnrpose  of 
contrasting  the  successive  generations  more  emphatically,  or  as  a  mere 
oriental  idiom  without  distinctive  meaning.  In  favour  of  the  latter  sup- 
position is  the  circumstance  that  it  is  wanting  in  the  other  clause,  where 
the  despisers  are  themselves  represented  as  doing  the  same  thing  with  the 
sons  of  the  oppressors.  Y^^^  means  not  only  to  despise  in  heart  but  to  treat 
with  contempt.  These  humbled  enemies  are  represented  as  acknowledging 
the  claim  of  Zion  to  be  recognised  as  the  holy  place  and  dwelling  of  Jeho- 
vah. The  old  construction  of  the  last  words,  the  Zion  of  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  supposes  Zion  as  a  proper  name  to  govern  the  next  word,  contrary 
to  the  general  rule,  but  after  the  analogy  of  such  combinations  as  Beth- 


892  ISAIAH  LX.  [Yer.  15,  10. 

lehem  of  Judah  and  Jehorah  of  hosts.  Hilzij?  prefers  to  make  P'V  an 
appellative  synonjinous  with  |VV,  thr  pillar  of  the  Holy  One  oj  hroel. 
Maurcr  more  plausibly  suggests  that  ^'i'lp  here  means  not  a  holy  person  but 
a  holy  or  coDsecruted  place,  as  in  chap.  Ivii.  15,  Ps.  xlvi.  5,  Ixv.  5.  On 
any  of  these  suppusitions,  the  sense  of  the  acknowledgment  remains  the 
same.  That  sense  is  determined  by  the  parallel  passage  chap.  xlv.  14, 
where  a  part  of  the  confession  is  in  these  words,  onUj  in  thee  is  God.  (Seo 
above,  p.  183.)  The  game  sense  must  here  be  attached  to  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  Zion  as  the  City  of  Jehovah,  in  order  to  explain  or  justify  the 
strength  of  the  expressions  put  into  the  mouth  of  her  repentant  enemies. 
The  old  Jerusalem  was  not  merely  a  holy  place,  a  city  of  Jehovah,  but  the 
holy  place,  the  city  of  Jehovah.  Its  exclusive  possession  of  this  charactir 
was  perfectly  essential,  and  is  always  so  described  in  Scripture.  Are  we  to 
understand,  then,  that  Jerusalem,  when  rebuilt  and  enlarged  hereafter,  is 
again  to  be  invested  with  its  old  monopoly  of  spiritual  privileges?  If  it  is, 
how  can  such  a  restoration  of  the  old  economy  be  reconciled  with  the  New 
Testament  doctrines  ?  If  it  is  not,  why  are  these  repentant  enemies  described 
as  rendering  precisely  the  same  homage  to  the  New  Jerusalem,  which 
properly  belonged  to  the  old  ?  If  this  is  a  mere  figure  for  deep  reverence 
and  so  forth,  what  becomes  of  the  principle  of  literal  interpretation  ?  ^^^let^ler 
these  questions  ai'e  of  any  exegetical  importance,  and  if  so,  whether  they 
are  satisfactorily  solved  by  Henderson's  interpretation  of  the  verse  as 
meaning  that  "  the  descendants  of  her  oppressors  will  acknowledge  the 
wrongs  that  have  been  done  to  her,  and  humbly  crave  a  share  in  her  privi- 
leges," is  left  to  the  decision  of  the  reader.  On  the  supposition  hitherto 
assumed  as  the  basis  of  the  exposition,  this  verse  simply  means  that  the 
enemies  of  the  church  shall  recognise  her  in  her  true  relation  to  her  divine 
Head. 

15.  Instead  of  thy  heiny  forsaken  anil  hated  and  uith  none  passiny  (through 
thee),  and  I  uill  place  thee  for  a  boast  of  ])er}icliiity,  a  joy  of  aye  and  aye. 
The  rinri  ruay  express  either  simply  a  change  of  condition  (whereas),  or  the 
reason  of  the  change  (because),  or  the  further  idea  of  equitable  compensa- 
tion. Hitzig  supposes  an  allusion  in  nxi3ip'  to  the  use  of  the  same  word  in 
the  law  with  respect  to  a  less  beloved  wife  (Gen.  xxix.  81  ;  Deut.  xxi.  15). 
But  in  the  phrase  "ijiy  T^  the  personification  seems  entirely  merged  in  the 
idea  of  a  city.  The  1  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause  is  commonly 
regarded  as  the  sign  of  the  apodosis,  and  as  such  cannot  be  expressed  in 
English.  It  may,  however,  have  its  usual  copulative  meaning  if  the  first 
clause  be  connected  with  the  foregoing  verse  as  a  jiart  of  the  same  sentence. 
In  either  case  the  1  must  at  the  same  time  be  conversivo  and  connect  the 
verb  with  those  of  the  preceding  verse,  or  else  it  must  be  taken  as  a  pneter 
like  ^Ppni  in  ver.  10.  In  order  probably  to  make  the  application  of  the 
verse  to  the  material  Jerusalem  more  natural,  Henderson  observes  that  D/iV 
is  here  used,  as  in  many  other  places,  for  a  period  of  long  and  unknown 
duration.  As  this  is  certainly  the  primitive  meaning  of  the  word,  it  is  often 
60  applied,  and  yet  it  may  be  noted  that  according  to  the  true  interpretation 
of  the  prophecy,  this  expression  may  be  taken  in  its  utmost  strength  and 
latitude  of  meaning. 

1(!.  And  thou  shalt  suck  the  milk  of  nations,  and  the  breast  of  kinys  shall 
thou  Slid,  and  thou  sluilt  krww  that  I,  Jehovah,  am  thy  saviour,  and  [that) 
thy  redeemer  {is)  the  Miyhty  One  of  Jacob.  All  interpreters  agree  with  the 
Targum  in  applying  this  verse  to  the  infiux  of  wealth  and  power  and  what- 
ever else  the  kings  and  nations  of  the  earth  can  contribute  to  the  progress 


Ver.  17.]  ISAIAH  LX.  893 

of  the  true  religion.  The  figure  is  derived  foom  Deut.  xxxiii.  19,  Iheij  shall 
suck  the  ahindar.ce  of  (he  seas.  "^^  cannot  here  mean  desolation,  as  above 
in  chap.  lix.  7,  and  below  in  ver,  18,  but  must  be  a  variation  of  the  usual 
form  IC?^  as  in  Job  xxiv.  9.  The  catachresis  in  the  second  clause  is  not  a 
mere  rhetorical  blunder,  but,  as  Hitzig  well  says,  an  example  of  the  sense 
overmastering  the  style,  a  licence  the  occasional  use  of  which  is  character- 
istic of  a  bold  and  energetic  ■oTiter.  It  also  serves  the  useful  purpose  of 
shewing  how  pui'ely  tropical  the  language  is.  Lowth  arid  Noyes  gratui- 
tously try  to  mitigate  the  harshness  of  the  metaphor  by  changing  the  second 
such  into  fostered  at  and  nursed  from  the  breast,  of  kings.  Yitringa  speaks 
of  some  as  attempting  to  remove  the  solecism  altogether  by  makings  kings 
mean  queens  or  the  dawjhters  of  kings,  or  by  appealing  to  extraordinary 
cases  in  which  males  have  given  suck  !  The  construction  of  the  last  clause 
is  the  one  expressed  by  Noyes.  Each  member  of  that  clause  contains  a 
subject  and  a  predicate,  and  therefore  a  complete  proposition.  The  sense 
is  not  merely  that  Jehovah  is  the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob,  but  that  the  Mighty 
God  of  Jacob  is  Israel's  redeemer,  and  the  self-existent  everlasting  God  his 
saviour.  Here,  as  in  chap.  i.  ^-i,  Henderson  translates  '^'''^^  protector ;  but 
see  vol.  i.  p.  91-92. 

17.  Instead  of  brass  (or  copper)  I  will  bring  (/old,  and  instead  of  iron  I 
will  bring  silver,  and  instead  of  wood  brass,  and  instead  of  stones  iron,  and  I 
will  place  (or  make)  thy  government  peace  atid  thy  rulers  righteousness.  Gro- 
tius  follows  the  Targum  in  explaining  the  first  clause  as  a  promise  of  ample 
compensation  for  preceding  losses.  As  if  he  had  said,  "For  the  brass  which 
thy  enemies  have  taken  from  thee  I  will  bring  thee  gold,"  &c.  Knobel,  on 
the  coutraiy,  understands  the  clause  as  meaning  that  the  value  of  the  pre- 
cious metals  shall  be  lowered  by  their  great  abundance.  Henderson  like- 
wise understands  it  as  a  promise  that  "  the  temporal  prosperity  of  the 
restored  Israelites  shall  resemble  that  of  their  ancestors  in  the  days  of 
Solomon."  (See  1  Kings  x.  27,  2  Chron.  ix.  20,  27).  But  the  thought 
which  is  naturally  suggested  by  the  words  is  that  expressed  by  Yitringa, 
namely,  that  all  things  shall  be  changed  for  the  better.  The  change  de- 
scribed is  not  a  change  in  kind,  i.  e.  from  bad  to  good,  but  in  degree,  i.  e. 
from  good  to  better  ;  because  the  same  things  which  appear  to  be  rejected 
in  the  first  clause  are  expressly  promised  in  the  second.  The  arrangement 
of  the  items  Yitringa  endeavours  to  explain  as  having  reference  to  the  out- 
ward appearance  of  the  substances,  those  being  pat  together  which  are 
most  alike.  (See  a  similar  gradation  in  chap.  xxx.  2G,  Zech.  xiv.  20, 
1  Cor.  iii.  12,  xv.  41.)  The  last  clause  resolves  the  figures  into  literal  ex- 
pressions, and  thus  shews  that  the  promise  has  respect  not  to  money  but 
to  moral  advantages.  '"T^p?  properly  means  office,  magistracy,  government, 
here  put  for  those  who  exercise  it,  like  nobility,  ministry,  and  other  terms 
in  English.  (Compare  Ezek.  ix.  1,  2  Kings,  xi.  18.)  ^^'^^l^,  which  has 
commonly  a  bad  sense,  is  here  used  for  magistrates  or  rulers  in  general, 
for  the  purpose  of  suggesting  that  instead  of  tyrants  or  exactors  they  should 
now  be  under  equitable  government.  The  two  parallel  expressions  Hender- 
son decides  to  signitj'  the  temporal  and  spiritual  chiefs  of  the  restored 
Jewish  community,  without  assigning  any  ground  for  the  alleged  distinction. 
There  is  much  more  force  in  his  remark  that  the  similarity  of  structure  be- 
tween this  verse  and  chap.  iii.  2-1  corroborates  the  genuineness  of  these 
later  prophecies.  Koppe's  explanation  of  the  last  clause  as  meaning,  "  I 
will  change  thy  punishment  into  peace  and  thy  afflictions  into  blessing,"  is 
justly  represented  by  Gesenius  as  arbitrary. 


394  ISAIAH  LX.  [Ver.  18-20. 

18.  There  shall  no  more  be  heard  violence  in  thy  land,  desolation  and  ruin 
in  thy  borders  (or  tcithin  thy  bounds) ;  and  thou  shalt  call  salvation  thy  irulh, 
and  thy  (jales  praise.  According  to  Vitringa  DDH  was  the  cry  lor  help 
usually  uttered  in  case  of  personal  violence.  (See  Job.  xix.  7,  Jer.  xx.  8). 
But  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  violence  itself, 
which  shall  never  more  be  heard  of.  He  also  distinguishes  It'  and  "'3^'  as 
relating  severally  to  lands  and  houses.  The  most  natural  explanation  of 
the  last  clause  is  that  which  makes  it  mean  that  the  walls  shall  atibrd  safety 
(chap.  xxvi.  1),  and  the  gates  occasion  of  praise.  Henderson's  explanation, 
that  the  gales  shall  resound  with  praise  does  not  agree  well  with  the  parallel. 
Some  understand  by  praise  the  praise  of  God  for  her  continued  safety  ; 
others  the  praise  or  fame  of  her  defences,  considered  either  as  arising  from 
victorious  resistance  to  assault,  or  as  preventing  it.  For  ^^^  the  Sep- 
tuagiiit  has  yXZitfj^a,  sculpture,  and  for  riSlj^  the  Vulgate  ocnipcibit.  Thou 
shalt  call,  as  in  many  other  cases,  means,  thou  shalt  have  a  right  and 
reason  so  to  call  them,     AVith  this  verse  compare  chap.  Ixv.  19-25. 

10.  jVo  more  shall  be  to  thee  the  sun  for  a  light  by  day,  and  for  brightness 
the  moon  shall  not  shine  to  thee,  and  Jelwvah  shall  bccume  thy  everlasting  light, 
and  thy  (rod  thy  glory.  The  ?  before  ^33  is  neglected  by  the  ancient  ver- 
sions, and  Hitzig  in  like  manner  makes  it  a  sign  of  the  nominative  abso- 
lute, as  for  the  hriyhliicss  of  the  iimon,  &c.  (See  above,  chap,  xxxii.  1,  and 
above,  p.  1).  iJut  the  Masorotic  accents  require  "^^i?  to  be  constnied 
separately  as  meaning  ivith  its  light  (Gesenius),  or  for  light  (English  Ver- 
sion). Some  regard  this  merely  as  a  figurative  promise  of  prosperity,  of 
which  light  is  a  natural  and  common  emblem.  Others  understand  it  as  a 
promise  of  God's  residence  among  his  people,  clothed  in  such  transcendent 
brightness  as  to  make  the  light  of  the  sun  and  the  moon  useless.  The  true 
sense  of  the  figures  seems  to  be  that  all  natural  sources  of  illumination  shall 
be  swallowed  up  in  the  clear  manifestation  of  the  presence,  [lowcr,  and  will 
of  God.  According  to  Henderson,  this  verse  and  the  next  depict  the  super- 
lative degree  of  happiness  wh'ch  shall  be  enjoyed  by  the  new  and  holy  Jeru- 
salem church,  expressed  in  language  of  the  most  sublime  imagery.  "Why 
we  are  thus  more  at  liberty  to  treat  the  sun  and  moon  of  this  passage  as 
mere  "  imagery,"  while  the  trees  of  ver.  13  "  must  be  literally  explained" 
as  meaning  timber,  we  are  not  informed. — With  this  verse  compare  liev. 
xxi.  2'6,  xxii.  5. — Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  needlessly  insert  l>y  night,  on 
the  authorit}'  of  the  ancient  versions,  which  prove  nothing,  however,  as  to 
a  dillerence  of  text.  The  occasional  violation  of  the  exact  parallelism  is 
not  so  much  a  blemish  as  a  beauty. 

20.  7'hy  sun  shall  set  no  more,  and  thy  moon  shall  not  be  withdraun ;  for 
Jehovah  shall  be  unto  t/iee  for  an  eternal  light,  and  completed  the  days  of  thy 
vwuming.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  any  want  of  consistency  between 
this  verse  and  that  before  it,  nor  even  that  the  Prophet  gives  a  new  turn  to 
his  metaphor.  Thy  sun  shall  set  no  more,  is  evidently  tantamount  to  saying, 
them  shalt  no  more  have  a  sun  that  sets  or  a  moon  that  witluiraws  herself, 
because,  &c.  The  active  verb  ^PX  is  used  in  the  same  way  by  Joel,  where 
he  says  that  the  stars  iritlidraiv  their  brightness,  i.  e.  cease  to  shine.  The 
expression  is  generic,  and  may  comprehend  all  failure  or  decrease  of  light, 
whether  by  setting,  waning,  or  eclipse,  or  by  the  temporar}'  intervention  of 
a  cloud.  The  last  words  of  this  verse  are  correctly  said  by  Hender.son  to 
furnish  a  key  to  the  whole  description,  by  identifying  joy  with  light,  and 
grief  with  darkness.— Compare  with  this  verse  chap.  xxv.  8,  Zecli.  xiv.  7, 
liev.  vii.  1(),  xxi.  4  ;  and  for  the  phrase,  days  (f  mouniiitg.  Gen.  xxvii.  41. 


Veb.  21,  22.J  ISAIAH  LX.  895 

21.  And  thy  people,  all  of  them  rightcom,  for  ever  shall  inherit  the  earth, 
the  branch  (or  fihoot)  of  mij  planting,  the  icorh  of  my  hands,  to  glorify  myself 
(or  to  he  glorijicd). — Compare  chaps,  iv.  3,  xxxiii.  24,  xxxv.  8,  lii.  1  ;   Rev. 
xxi.  7,  27.     The  first  cUiuse  may  also  bo  read  as  two  distinct  propositions, 
thy  people  all  <f  them  are  (or  shall  he)  righteous,  for  ever  they  shall  inherit  the 
earth.     According  to  the  literal  interpretation,  so  called,  this  is  a  promise 
that  the  Jews  shall  possess  the  Holy  Land  for  ever.     But  even  granting 
land  to  be  a  more   literal   and   exact  translation,  which  it  is   not,   still 
the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  has  attached  to  this  prophetic  formula  a  much 
higher  meaning,  the  possession  of  the  land  being  just  such  a  type  or  symbol 
of  the  highest  future  blessings  as  the  exodus  from  Egypt  is  of  ultimate 
deliverance,  or  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  of  sudden,  condign, 
irretrievable  destruction.     But  in  favour  of  the  wider  version,  earth,  is  the 
analogy  of  chap.  xlix.  8,  where  Israel  is  represented  as  occupying  and  re- 
storing the  desolate  heritages  of  the  whole  eirth. — The  Septuagint  renders 
"IVP.  by  (puXdnau'j,  as  if  written  "IVJ.     For  the  meaning  of  the   word,  see 
above^   chap.  xi.  1,  xiv.   19,  vol.  i.   pp.   24^,   300,   301.      According  to 
Hendewerk,  it  here  denotes  the  population  of  the  new  Jerusalem,  and  is 
identical  with  the  plant  and  root  of  chap.  liii.  2 ;  from  which  he  gravely  infers 
that  the  D^p'^l'V  ot  this  verse  and  the  P'''i'V  of  chap.  liii.  11,  must  also  be 
identical.     The  dependence  of  God's  people  on  himself  for  the  origin  and 
sustentation  of  their  spiritual  life  is  forcibly  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a  plant 
which  he  has  planted  (Ps.  xcii.  14,  Matt.  xv.  13,  John  xv.  1,  2),  and  by 
that  of  a  work  which  he  has  wrought  (chap.  xxix.  23,  xliii.  7) :  in  reference 
to  the  last  of  which  the  apostle  says  (Eph.  ii.  10),  tve  are  his  workman- 
ship, created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  loorks,  which  God  hath  hefore  or- 
dained that  we  should  tvalk  in  them  ;  and  in  reference  to  the  first,  our  Lord 
himself  (John  xv.  8),  herein  is  my  Father  glorified  that  ye  hear  much  fruit, 
so  shall  ye  be  my  discijAes  ;  and  again,  with  an  entire  change  of  figure  (Matt. 
V.  IG),  let  your  light  so  shiyie  hefore  men  that  they  may  see  your  good  works, 
and  glorify  yoicr  Father  which  is  in  heaven.     The  same  ultimate  design 
is  set  I'orth  in  the  words  of  the  verse  before  us. — The  textual  reading  iyt20 
is  regarded  by  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers  as  an  error  of  transcription 
for  ^yt^yo,  as  given  in  the  margin.     But  Eosenmiiller  seems  to  think  that 
the  pronoun  of  the  thii'd  person  may  refer  to  V?^>  which  is  sometimes  mas- 
culine ;  De  Dieu  refers  it  to  the  people ;  and  jMaurer  thinks  it  possible  to 
connect  it  with  Jehovah,  by  a  sudden  enallage  so  common  in  the  prophets ; 
which  last  is  approved  by  Hitzig,  but  avoided  as  too  harsh  in  his  translation. 
As  to  his  notion  that  "iXSnn  discribes  God  as  being  proud  of  Israel,  see 
above,  on  ver.  13. — To  the  (jucstion  whether  all  the  restored  Jews  are  to  be 
righteous,  Henderson  says  nothing;  but  Miohaelis  maintains  that  this  expres- 
sion does  not  necessarily  imply  regeneration  or  denote  true  pietj',  but  simply 
signifies  the  prevalence  of  social  virtue,  such  as  may  exist  even  among  the 
heathen,  much  more  among  those  who  are  in  possession  of  the  true  religion. 
— According  to  my  own  view  of  the  Prophet's  meaning,  he  here  predicts 
the  elevation  of  the  church  to  its  normal  or  ideal  state,  a  change  of  which 
we  may  already  see  the  rudiments,  however  far  we  may  be  yet  from  its  final 
consummation. 

22.  llie  little  one  shall  become  a  thousand,  and  the  small  one  a  strong 
nation ;  I,  Jehovah,  in  its  time  xvill  hasten  it.  The  superlative  sense  given 
to  the  adjectives  little  and  small  by  Gesenius  and  Ewald  is  a  needless 
departure  from  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original.  The  substantive  verb 
with  7  may  also  be  rendered  shall  he  for,  i.  e.  shall  be  so  reckoned,  which 


896  ISAIAH  LX.  [Vkb.  22. 

amounts  to  the  same  thing.  Kimchi,  and  Roscnmiillcr  after  him,  very 
unnecessarily  observe  that  small  uuii  little  here  relate  to  number,  not  to 
size.  Gesenius  and  several  of  the  later  writers  understand  them  as  denoting 
one  without  a  family,  or  with  a  small  one ;  in  which  case  the  ^7M  might  be 
taken  in  its  genealogical  sense  of  household,  family,  or  other  subdivision  of 
a  tribe.  (Judges  vi.  15,  1  Sam.  x.  12,  xxiii.  28,  Micah  v.  1.)  But  this 
whole  interpretation  is  less  natural  than  that  of  Yitringa,  who  applies  the 
epithets  to  Israel  itself,  falsely,  according  to  Gesenius,  whose  ipse  dixit 
loses  much  of  its  authority  in  consequence  of  his  own  frequent  changes  of 
opinion  upon  insulficient  grounds,  or  none  at  all.  The  verse,  on  the  face 
of  it,  is  simply  a  description  of  increase,  like  that  in  chap.  xxvi.  15,  xlix. 
19,  20,  Ac. — The  pronouns  in  the  last  clause  are  correctly  explained  by 
Knobel  as  neuters,  referring  to  the  whole  preceding  series  of  prophecies. 
(Compare  chap,  xliii.  13,  xlvi.  1]).  The  his  in  the  common  version  is 
equivalent  to  its  in  modern  English,  a  possessive  form  apparently  unknown 
to  the  translators  of  the  Bible. — J  uill  hasten  it,  has  reference  to  the  time 
ordained  for  the  event,  or  may  denote  the  suddenness  of  its  occurrence, 
without  regard  to  its  remoteness  or  the  length  of  the  intervening  period, 
which  seems  to  be  the  sense  conveyed  by  the  Vulgate  version,  suhilo  faciam. 
(See  above,  chap.  xiii.  22,  vol.  i,  p.  285. — The  reference  of  these  pro- 
mises to  the  literal  Jerusalem  is  ascribed  by  Jerome  to  the  Jews  and 
half  Jews  (semi-jtcdaei)  of  his  own  day,  and  opposed  by  Vilringa  on  a 
very  insufficient  ground,  viz.,  the  impossibility  of  ascertaining  the  pre- 
cise site  of  the  ancient  Jerusalem,  an  impossibility  which  may  be  considered 
as  already  realized.  (Sec  Robinson's  Palestine,  i.  p.  414.)  The  true 
ground  of  objection  is  the  violation  of  analogy  involved  in  this  interpreta- 
tion. The  idea  of  Eusebius  and  Procopius,  that  the  prophecy  is  literal, 
but  conditional,  and  now  rescinded  by  the  unbelief  of  those  to  whom  it  was 
addressed,  opens  the  door, to  endless  licence,  and  makes  e.\egesis  either 
useless  or  impossible.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Gregory  VII.  applied  this 
passage  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  the  palmy  state  to  which  she  was  exalted 
by  himself.  The  hypothesis  of  Grotius,  that  it  has  exclusive  reference  to 
the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  is  now  the  current  one  among 
the  Germans,  who  of  course  are  unaffected  by  Vitring.i's  objection  that  the 
prophecy  in  this  sense  never  was  fulfilled.  The  real  argument  against  it, 
is  the  absence  of  explicit  reference  to  the  supposed  subject,  and  the  ease 
with  which  an  indefinite  number  of  analogous  reslrictigns  or  specific  appli- 
cations might  bo  devised  and  carried  out  on  grounds  of  equal  plausibility. 
The  only  hypothesis  which  seems  to  shun  the  opposite  extremes  of  vague- 
ness and  minuteness,  and  to  take  the  language  in  its  obvious  sense,  without 
forced  constructions  or  imaginary  facts,  is  the  one  proposed  in  the  intro- 
duction, and  on  which  the  exposition  of  the  chapter  has  been  founded.  It 
is  the  doctrine  of  some  early  wTiters,  that  the  Jerusalem  or  Zion  of  this 
passage  is  the  primitive  or  apostolic  church,  to  which  the  description  is  in 
many  points  inapplicable ;  whereas  it  is  perfectly  appropriate  to  the  Now 
Jerusalem,  the  Christian  Church,  not  as  it  was,  or  is,  or  will  bo  at  any 
period  of  its  history  exclusively,  but  viewed  in  reference  to  tho  whole  course 
of  that  history,  and  in  contrast  with  tho  many  disadvantages  and  hardships 
of  the  old  economy. 


Ver.  IJ  IsXijiji  LXI.  397 

This  principle  of  gn 

but  through  a  '   JjXI. 
+o  a  ''"■ 

After  describing  the  new  condition  of  the  church,  he  again  introduces 
the  great  Personage  by  whom  the  change  is  to  be  brought  about.  His 
mission  and  its  object  are  described  by  liimself  in  vers.  1-8.  Its  grand  result 
shall  be  the  restoration  of  a  ruined  world,  ver.  4.  The  church,  as  a  mediator 
between  God  and  the  revolted  nations,  shall  enjoy  their  service  and  support, 
vers.  6,  0.  The  shame  of  Gods  people  shall  be  changed  to  honour,  ver.  7. 
His  righteousness  is  pledged  to  this  effect,  ver.  8.  The  church,  once  re- 
stricted to  a  single  nation,  shall  be  recognised  and  honoured  among  all, 
ver.  9.  He  triumphs  in  the  prospect  of  the  universal  spread  of  truth  and 
righteousness,  vers.  10,  11. 

1.  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  Jehovah  {is)  upon  me,  because  Jehovah  hath 
anointed  me  to  bring  good  news  to  the  humble,  he  hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  tlie 
broken  in  heart,  to  proclaim  to  captives  freedom,  and  to  the  bound  open  opening 
(of  the  eyes  or  of  the  prison-doors).  Unction  in  the  Old  Testament  is  not 
a  mere  sign  of  consecration  to  office,  whether  that  of  Prophet,  Priest,  or 
King  (1  Kings  xix.  16,  Lev.  viii.  12,  1  Kings  i.  31),  but  the  symbol  of 
spiritual  influences,  by  which  the  recipient  was  bo!h  qualified  atid  desig- 
nated for  his  work.  (See  1  Sam.  x.  1,  0,  xvi.  13.)  Hence  Kimclii's  defini- 
tion of  the  rite,  as  a  sign  of  the  divine  choice  (fiO"^l>f)  0p")3D  Tt\t\\,  although 
not  erroneous,  is  inadequate.  The  office  here  described  approaches  nearest 
to  the  prophetic.  The  specific  functions  mentioned  have  all  occurred  and 
been  explained  before,  (See  above,  on  chaps,  xlii.  1-7,  xlviii.  IG,  xlix.  1-9, 
1.  4,  li.  IG.)  The  proclamation  of  liberty  has  reference  to  the  year  of  jubilee 
under  the  Mosaic  law  (Lev.  xxv.  10-13,  xxvii.  24,  Jer.  xxxiv.  8-10),  which 
is  expressly  called  the  year  of  liberty  or  liberation  by  Ezekiel  (xlvi.  17), — 
nip'np.^  is  explained  by  Kimchi  and  Jarchi  to  mean  opening  of  the  prison, 
the  second  word  being  regarded  as  a  derivative  of  nj??.  to  take.  De  Dieu 
obtains  the  same  sense  by  appealing  to  the  Ethiopic  usage.  Gesenius  and 
the  other  modern  writers  are  disposed  to  follow  Aben  Ezra  in  treating  it  as 
one  word  (nipOi??),  not  a  compound  but  an  intensive  or  reduplicated  form, 
intended  to  express  the  idea  of  complete  or  thorough  opening,  (See  above, 
chap.  ii.  20,  and  vol.  i.  p.  lOG.)  This  Gesenius  understands  to  mean  the 
opening  of  the  prison,  but  in  opposition  to  the  settled  usage  which  restricts 
npEi  and  its  derivatives  to  the  opening  of  the  eyes  and  cars,  and  which  can- 
not be  set  aside  by  alleging  that  the  corresponding  verb  in  Arabic  is  used 
more  widely.  Ewald  adheres  to  the  only  authorised  sense,  but  explains  it 
as  a  figurative  description  of  deliverance  from  prison,  which  may  be  poeti- 
cally represented  as  a  state  of  darkness,  and  deliverance  from  it  as  a  resto- 
ration of  the  sight.  But  for  reasons  which  have  been  already  given,  the 
mdy  natural  sense  which  can  be  put  upon  the  words  is  that  of  spiritual 
blindness  and  illumination,  (See  above,  on  chap.  xlii.  7,  1.  10.)  With 
this  question  is  connected  another  as  to  the  person  here  introduced  as 
speaking.  According  to  Gesenius,  this  is  the  last  of  the  Prophet's  self- 
defences  (Selbstapologie) ;  and  he  even  goes  so  far  as  to  assert  that  all  in- 
terpreters are  forced  (nothgedrungcn)  to  regard  Isaiah  as  himself  the  speaker. 
Umbreit  supposes  him  to  be  the  speaker,  but  only  as  the  type  and  repre- 
sentative of  a  greater  Prophet.  Vitringa  and  other  orthodox  interpreters 
regard  the  question  as  decided  by  our  Lord  himself  in  the  synagogue  at 
Nazareth,  when,  after  reading  this  verse  and  a  portion  of  the  next  from  the 
hook  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  he  began  to  say  unto  them,  Thi^day  is  this  scrip- 


398  ISAIAH  f>J5^.  [Ver.  1. 

ture  fulfilled  in  your  cars  (Luke  fl'i.  and  RoscnmuUcr  yjtj  of  thi^  dis- 
course, compared  with  the  stutt'm"^  'i^^Jc  herftnediately  follows,  that  the 
peojilc  hair  him  icilnfss,  and  xiovdereU  a I'^Dii'" gracious  nurds  uhirh  )ni>ciedid 
out  of  his  mouth,  and  connected  with  the  singular  expression  that  he  hi't/an 
thus  to  say  unto  them,  makes  it  proh:ihle  that  we  have  only  the  be^'inning 
or  a  suuimaiT  of  what  the  Saviour  said  on  that  occasion.  That  the  whole 
is  not  recorded  may,  however,  be  regarded  as  a  proof  that  his  discourse  con- 
tained no  interpretation  of  the  place  before  us  which  may  not  be  gathered 
from  the  few  words  left  on  record,  or  from  the  text  and  context  oi  the 
prophecy  itself.  Now  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  words  of  Christ  just 
quoted  do  not  necessarily  import  that  he  is  the  direct  and  only  6ulje<t  of 
the  prophecy  ;  for  even  if  the  subjectwere  Isaiah,  or  the  Prophets  as  a  class, 
or  Israel,  yet  if  at  the  same  time  the  eflccts  foretold  were  coming  then 
to  pass,  our  Lord  might  say.  This  day  in  this  scripture  fulf  lied  in  your  ears. 
Upon  this  ground  J.  D.  Michaelis  adopts  the  application  to  Isaiah,  will  out 
disowning  the  authority  of  Christ  as  an  interpreter  of  prophecy.  But  this 
restriction  of  the  passage  is  at  variance  with  what  we  have  already  seen  to 
be  the  true  sense  of  the  parallel  places  (chap,  xlii  1-7,  and  chnp.  xlix.  1-0), 
where  the  form  of  expression  is  the  same,  and  where  all  agree  that  the  same 
speaker  is  brought  forward.  If  it  has  been  concluded  on  sufficient  grounds 
that  the  ideal  person  there  presented  is  the  Messiah,  the  same  contlnsion 
cannot,  without  arbitrary  violence,  be  avoided  here,  and  thus  the  prophecy 
itself  interj^rets  our  Lord's  words,  instead  of  being  interpreted  by  them. 
This  in  the  present  case  is  more  satisfactory,  because  it  cuts  ofi"  all  objec- 
tion drawn  from  the  indefinite  character  of  his  expressions.  At  the  same 
time,  and  by  parity  of  reasoning,  a  subordinate  and  secondary  reference  to 
Israel  as  a  representative  of  the  Messiah,  and  to  the  Prophets  as  in  some 
sense  the  representatives  of  Israel,  as  well  as  of  Messiah  in  their  prophetic 
character,  must  be  admitted  ;  and  thus  we  arc  brought  again  to  Christ  as  the 
last  and  the  ideal  Prophet,  and  to  the  ground  assumed  by  the  profound  and 
far-seeing  Calvin,  for  which  he  has  been  severely  censured  even  hy  Cahin- 
istic  writers,  and  which  Vitringa,  while  professin'g  to  defend  him,  calls  a 
concession  to  the  Jews  [hie  aliqnid  indulgendum  cevsuit  Judais),  instead 
of  a  concession  to  candour,  faith,  good  taste,  and  common  sense.  Hender- 
son's exposition  of  this  passage  differs  from  that  of  other  orthodox  int«r- 
preters  only  in  connecting  the  Messiah's  office,  here  described  specifically, 
with  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews.  It  might  have  been  suppose  d  that 
some  obstruction  would  have  been  presented  to  a  literal  interpreter  in  this 
case  by  the  very  strong  expression  of  our  Lord,  this  day  is  this  prophecy 
fidfillcd  in  your  ears.  But  the  process  of  literal  interpretation  is  in 
practice  very  simple  and  convenient.  ^Vhile  the  personal  reference  of  the 
words  to  Christ,  which  is  not  affirmed  by  himself  at  all,  is  n  presented  as 
"  the  highest  possible  authority  "  for  so  explaining  them,  the  actual  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  at  that  time,  which  is  affirmed  as  strongly  as  it  could 
be,  gdes  for  nothing.  The  two  parts  of  this  singular  process  cannot  be 
presented  in  more  striking  contrast  thnn  by  direct  quotation.  "No  principle 
of  accommodation,  or  of  secondary  application,  can  at  all  satisfy  the  claims 
of  the  announcement,  Tliis  day  is  this  yciivturefu'Jillcd  in  your  cars.  It 
must,  however,  be  ohserved,  that  this  oompietion  merely  lay  in  our  Lord's 
entering  upon  the  public  discharge  of  his  prophetic  (  ffice  among  the  Jews. 
Far  from  being  confined  to  the  instiucticns  of  that  particular  day.  it  was 
to  be  exercised  in  perpetuity,  during  the  continual  co  of  the  church  v\nn 
earth,  AND  PRE-EMINENTLY  AS  IT  BE8PECT8  THE  Jews,  at  the  futuve  pel icd 


Vee.  2,  3.]  ISAIAH  LXL  899 

hero  referred  to."  This  principle  of  gradual  or  continued  fulfilment,  not 
at  a  single  point  of  time,  but  through  a  course  of  ages,  is  not  only  sound 
and  often  absolutely  necessary  to  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  prophets, 
but  the  very  prin'-iplo  which  in  a  hundred  other  instances  is  sacrificed  with- 
out a  scruple  to  the  chimera  of  a  purely  "  literal  "  interpretation.  Another 
remarkable  comment  of  the  same  able  writer  upon  this  verse  is  as  follows : 
"  The  terms  captives  and  prisoners  are  to  be  taken  metaphorically,  and 
have  no  reference  to  external  restraint."  It  is  only  Jerusalem  and  Zion, 
and  the  temple  and  the  trees  required  in  building  it,  "  that  must  be  literally 
explained."     See  above,  on  chap.  Ix.  13. 

2,  To  proclaim  a  year  of  favour  for  Jehovah,  and  a  day  of  vengeance  for 
our  God,  to  comfort  all  mourners.  Gesenius  and  Rosenmiiller  explain  ?  as 
the  idiomatic  sign  of  the  genitive  when  separated  from  its  governing  noun, 
"  Jehovah's  year  of  grace,  God's  day  of  vengeance."  It  is  equally  agree- 
able to  usage,  and  more  natural  in  this  case,  to  give  the  particle  its  wider 
sense  as  denoting  relation  in  general,  a  year  of  favour  as  to  or  concerning 
God,  which  may  here  be  expressed  by  the  English  for.  Vitringa  quotes 
Clement  of  Alexandria  as  inferring  from  the  use  of  the  word  i/ear  in  this 
verse  that  our  Lord's  public  ministry  was  only  one  year  in  duration,  a 
conclusion  paradoxically  maintained  by  Gerard  John  Vossius,  but  wholly 
irreconcileable  with  the  gospel  history.  The  expression  is  correctly  explained 
by  Vitringa  as  a  poetical  equivalent  to  day  suggested  by  the  previous 
allusion  to  the  year  of  jubilee ;  and  Hitzig  adds  that  there  is  probably  a 
reference  to  God's  vengeance  as  a  transitory  act,  and  to  his  mercy  as  a 
lasting  one.  The  same  two  words  occur  as  parallels  in  chaps,  xxxiv.  8, 
Ixiii.  4 ;  while  in  chap,  xlix,  8,  we  have  the  general  expression  time  of 

favour.  For  the  meaning  of  the  last  words  of  the  verse,  see  above,  on 
chaps,  xlix.  13,  and  Ivii.  18.  They  may  either  be  descriptive  of  sufferers, 
as  the  persons  needing  consolation,  or  of  penitents,  as  those  who  shall  alone 
receive  it. 

3.  To  put  upon  Zion's  mourners — to  give  them  a  crown  instead  of  ashes, 
the  oil  of  joy  for  mourning,  a  garment  of  praise  for  a  faint  spirit  ;  and  it 
shall  he  called  to  them  (or  they  thall  he  called)  the  oaks  of  righteousness,  the 
planting  of  Jehovah  {i.  e.  planted  by  Jehovah)  to  glorify  himself  The 
construction  seems  to  be  interrupted  and  resumed,  a  practice  not  unfrequent 
with  Isaiah.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supplying  joy  after  the  first 
verb,  as  Houbigant  and  Lowth  do.  Of  the  many  senses  which  might  here 
be  attached  to  the  verb  Q-lf,  the  most  appropriate  is  that  of  putting  on,  as 
applied  to  dress,  though  with  another  particle,  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  34,  xli.  42, 
and  often  elsewhere.  The  English  Version  has  appoint,  and  Gesenius 
give  ;  both  of  which  are  justified  by  usage,  but  less  suitable  in  this  case 
than  the  one  above  proposed.  By  the  repetition  of  the  word  mourners,  this 
verse  is  wrought  into  the  foregoing  context  in  a  mode  of  which  we  have  had 
several  examples.  (See  above,  on  chap.  Ix.  15.)  Zion's  mourners  may  be 
simply  those  who  mourn  in  Zion,  or  those  who  mourn  for  her  (chap.  Ixvi. 
10),  but  as  these  ideas  are  not  incompatible,  both  may  be  included. 
(Compare  chaps.  Ivii.  18,  Ix.  20.)  Gesenius  speaks  of  the  paronomasia 
between  IN?  and  *1?N[  as  something  entirely  distinct  from  the  antithesis  in 
sense  between  an  ornamental  head-dress  and  the  ashes  strewn  upon  the 
head  by  mourners.  But  this  relation  of  ideas  may  be  looked  upon  as 
reall}'  essential  to  a  true  paronomasia.  Augusti's  ridiculous  travesty  of 
this  phrase  [Putz  fiir  Schmutz)  has  been  actually  revived  by  De  Wette. 
Ewald,  with  purer  taste,  neglects  the  verbal  assonance,  and  reproduces 


400  ISAIAH  LXL  [Yer.  4,  5. 

Jerome's  fine  tronsltition  {coronam  pro  cinere).  That  ointment  was  not 
used  by  mourners  but  rejoicers,  miiy  be  leiirned  from  a  compiirison  of 
2  Sam.  xiv.  2,  with  Ps.  xxiii.  5.  Hifzig  derives  npnijl  from  the  Kal  of  ^?n, 
and  explains  it  to  mean  bri'ihtness  as  the  parallel  term  HHS  is  applied  to  a 
pale  colour  (Lev.  xiii.  21);  but  a  sufficient  contrast  is  aflbrded  by  the 
usual  sense  praise,  the  whole  phrase  meaning  f^'armcnts  which  excite 
admiration.  For  tlie  nieaniiit,'  and  translation  of  Dv*K,  pee  vol.  i.  p.  9-1. 
By  oaks  of  righteousness,  Ge«enius  understands  such  as  enjoy  the  divine 
favour  or  blessing  ;  Lowth,  such  as  prove  by  their  flourishing  condition 
that  they  were  planted  by  him  ;  Ilenderson,  such  as  bear  the  fruit  of 
righteousness  ;  Luzzntto,  terebinths  of  long  duration,  as  in  chap.  i.  26  ; 
instead  of  city  of  righteousness  and  faithful  city,  he  reads  city  of  perma- 
nence, enduring  city.  The  mixture  not  only  of  metaphors  but  also  of  literal 
and  figurative  language  in  this  verse  shews  clearly  that  it  has  respect  to 
spiritual  not  external  changes.     (Compare  chap.  xliv.  4,  Ix.  21.) 

4.  And  they  shaH  build  up  the  ruins  of  antiquity,  the  desolations  of  the 
ancients  they  shall  raise,  and  shall  renew  the  cities  of  rwn  {i.  e.  ruined 
cities),  the  desolations  of  aye  and  arje.  Both  the  thought  and  language  of 
this  verse  have  been  explained  already.  See  above,  on  chaps,  xlix.  8, 
liv.  3,  Iviii.  12.)  Lowth,  not  contented  with  the  difficulty  of  explaining 
"lOD  in  chap.  Iviii.  12,  wnuld  insert  it  here,  on  the  authority  of  four  manu- 
scripts, and  David  Kimchi ;  but  Kocher  understands  the  latter  as  distinctly 
pointing  out  the  diflerence  between  the  places. — The  older  writers  take 
D'3b'4{T  as  an  adjective  agreeing  with  riic^b',  but  this  is  frminine  ;  Gese- 
nius  and  Ewald,  as  an  absolute  adjective  or  noun  corresponding  to  mnjorea, 
ancestors  or  ancients  ;  Umbreit,  as  a  noun  meaning  ancient  times. — 
Hendewerk  agrees  with  Gesenius,  but  applies  the  term  specifically  to  the 
Jews  who  were  alive  at  the  desti'uction  of  the  temple.  The  verb  rcnexo  is 
applicl  as  in  2  Chron.  xv.  8,  xxiv.  4. — According  to  Henderson,  this  verse 
and  the  next  "admit  of  no  consistent  interpretation,  except  on  the  principle 
that  the  Jews  are  to  be  restored  to  the  land  of  their  fathers.  The  ruins 
and  desolations  are  those  of  cities  that  had  once  been  inhabited,  and  cannot, 
without  the  utmost  violence,  be  applied  to  the  heathen  world."  But  why 
may  they  not  be  explained  as  "  imagery,"  like  chap.  Ix.  19,  20,  or  bo 
"  taken  metaphorically."  and  without  reference  to  external  desolation,  like 
the  c'iptivcs  and  prisoriers  of  ver.  1  ?  If  this  be  what  is  meant  by  "  con- 
sistent interpretation,"  it  is  very  dearly  purchased  by  assuming  as  a 
"principle"  a  fact  not  mentioned  in  the  text  or  context,  and  supposing 
this  to  be  literally  alluded  to  wherever  the  hypothesis  is  possible,  while  all 
the  accompanying  circumstances  are  explained  away  as  figures. 

5.  Then  shall  stand  strangers  and  feed  your  flocks,  and  the  children  of 
outland  {shall  he)  your  plouyhmen  and  your  vinedressers.  For  the  sense  of 
■<3p;)3,  see  above,  on  chap.  Ix.  10.  Kimchi  explains  stand  to  monn,  they 
shall  rise  and  conic  for  the  puqiose.  Some  suppose  it  to  be  an  idiomatic 
pleonasm,  others  u  periphrasis  for  ser\'ice ;  but  the  first  is  a  more  evasion, 
and  the  second  smse  belongs  to  the  verb  only  when  standing  in  the 
presence  of  another  is  expressed  or  implied.  (Deut.  i.  HH,  1  Kings  i.  28, 
Jer.  Hi.  12.)  The  conjunction  of  these  verbs  here  and  in  Micah  v.  8,  may 
justify  the  supposition  that  the  primary  reference  in  either  case  is  to  a 
practice  of  the  oriental  shepherds.  As  to  the  meaning  of  i)u>  )>rophecy, 
interpreters  are  much  divided.  Seme  seem  to  take  it  in  the  strictest  sense 
as  a  promise  that  the  heathen  should  be  slaves  to  the  Jews.  (See  above, 
chap.  xiv.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  287.)     Gesenius  understands  it  as  meaning  that 


Veb.  6.]  ISAIAH  LXI.  401 

the  Jews  should  confine  themselves  to  spiritual  services,  and  leave  mere 
secular  pursuits  to  the  Gentiles.  Nearly  allied  to  this  is  Hitzig's  explana- 
tion that  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  described  as  sustaining  the  relation  of 
priests  and  laymen  to  each  other.  Ewald  qualifies  it  still  more  by  describ- 
ing the  relation  to  be  that  of  the  Levites  to  the  other  tribes,  and  even  this 
restricted  by  the  promise  in  chap.  Ixvi.  21.  But  that  verse  shews  con- 
clusively that  no  exclusive  promise  of  Levitical  or  sacerdotal  rank  to  the 
Jews,  as  distinguished  from  the  Gentiles  can  be  here  intended.  This  is 
confirmed  by  the  language  of  Peter,  who  applies  the  promise  of  the  next 
verse  to  the  Christian  Church  (1  Peter  ii.  5).  The  only  way  in  which  all 
these  seeming  discrepancies  can  be  reconciled,  is  by  supposing,  as  we  have 
done  hitherto,  that  even  in  Exod.  xix.  G,  the  promise  is  addressed  to  Israel 
not  as  a  nation  but  a  church ;  so  that  when  the  Jewish  people  ceased  to 
bear  this  character,  they  lost  all  claim  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise, 
which  is  still  in  force,  and  still  endures  to  the  benefit  of  those  to  whom  it 
was  originally  given,  namely,  the  Israel  of  God,  that  is  to  say,  his  church 
or  chosen  people.  This  view  of  the  matter  sets  aside  not  only  the  inter- 
pretations which  have  been  already  mentioned  as  confining  the  promise  to 
the  natural  descendants  of  Israel,  but  also  that  of  Jerome  and  Procopius, 
who,  although  they  correctly  recognise  the  church  as  the  object  of  address, 
make  this  a  threatening  that  the  Jews  shall  be  supplanted  by  the  Gentiles 
as  the  pastors  or  ministers  of  the  flock  of  God.  That  the  holders  of  this 
otfice,  might,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  usage  of  Scripture  and  of  this 
book,  be  described  as  shepherds,  husbandmen,  and  vinedressers,  may  be 
seen  by  a  comparison  of  chaps,  iii.  14,  v.  1,  xi.  6,  xxvii.  2,  xxx.  23,  24, 
si.  11,  with  Acts  XX.  28,  1  Cor.  iii.  9,  ix.  7;  and  with  the  imagery  of  our 
Saviour's  parables.  It  does  not  follow  necessarily,  however,  that  the  oflBce 
heie  assigned  to  strangers  and  foreigners  is  that  of  spiritual  guides,  much 
less  that  they  are  doomed  to  a  degrading  servitude.  The  simplest  explana- 
tion of  the  verse  is  that  which  understands  it  as  descriptive  not  of  subjuga- 
tion but  of  intimate  conjunction,  as  if  he  had  said,  those  who  are  now 
strangers  and  foreigners  shall  yet  be  sharers  in  your  daily  occupations,  and 
entrusted  with  your  dearest  interests.  By  strangers  we  are  then  to  under- 
stand not  Gentiles  as  opposed  to  Jews,  but  all  who  have  been  aliens  from  the 
covenant  of  mercy  and  the  church  of  God. — The  only  comment  made  by  Hen- 
derson on  this  verse  is  included  in  the  observation  already  quoted,  that  these 
two  verses  (4  and  5)  "  admit  of  no  consistent  interpretation,  except  on  the 
principle  that  the  Jews  are  to  be  restored  to  the  land  of  theu*  fathers." 
How  the  author  would  apply  this  in  detail  to  the  fifth  verse,  we  can  only 
argue  analogically  from  his  exposition  of  the  fourth  ;  and  as  he  there  insists 
upon  a  literal  rebuilding  of  the  cities  once  inhabited  by  Jews  as  the  only 
stnse  of  which  the  prophecy  admits  "  without  the  utmost  violence,"  so 
here  he  may  be  understood  as  tacitly  beheving  in  a  future  subjection  of  the 
(i entiles  to  the  restored  Jews,  as  their  husbandmen  and  shepherds.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  he  understands  the  service  here  exacted  to  be  metaphorical 
or  spiritual,  we  have  only  to  repeat  what  we  have  said  before  as  to  the 
worth  of  that  "  consistent  interpretation  "  which  results  from  the  applica- 
tion of  this  novel  "  principle." 

G.  And  ye  (or  more  emphaticall}',  as  for  rjou),  the  privnts  of  Jehovah  shall 
yv  he  called,  (he  inivisters  of  our  God  shall  he  said  to  you  (or  of  you),  (he 
strenydi  ofnadovs  shall  ye  cat,  and  in  their  glory  shall  ye  substitute  your- 
selves (or  into  their  glory  shall  ye  enter  by  exchange).     Most  of  the  earlier 

VOL.  n.  0  c 


402  ISAIAH  LXI.  (Ver.  6. 

writers,  dowu  to  Gescnius  in  his  Commentarv,  agree  substantially  with 
Jerome  in  his  version  of  the  last  word  {huperlu'tis)  ;  which  they  regard  as 
a  cognate  form  or  an  orthographical  variat  on  of  1">l?Nri?  in  Ps.  xciv,  i,  whero 
it  stoniB  to  denote  talking  of  one's  self,  and,  by  a  natural  transition,  glory- 
ing or  boasting.  Albert  Hchultens  tried  to  found  upon  an  Arabic  analogy 
the  sense  of  "  providing  for  one's  self,"  and  Sclicid  that  of  "  flouting  or 
swimming  in  abundance."  But  nil  the  latest  writ<.rs,  not  excepting  Gese- 
nius  in  his  Thesaurus,  have  goue  back  to  Jarcbi's  explanation  of  the  word 
as  denoting  "  mutual  exchange  or  substitution."  This  supposes  it  to  he 
derived  from  iP),  a  cognate  form  and  synonyme  of  "WD,  to  change  or  ex- 
change, occurring  only  in  the  Hiphil,  Jer.  ii.  11.  This  word  is  important 
as  determining  the  sense  not  only  of  the  whole  verse,  but  of  that  before  it, 
by  requiring  both  to  be  considered  as  descriptive,  not  of  exaltation  and  sub- 
jection, but  of  mutual  exchange,  implying  intimate  association.  Some,  it 
is  true,  attempt  to  carry  out  the  first  idea  even  here,  by  making  this  last 
word  denote  an  absolute  exclusive  substitution,  t,  e.  the  dispossession  of  the 
Gentiles  by  the  Jews.  But  the  context,  etymologv',  and  usage,  all  combine 
to  recommend  the  idea  of  reciprocal  exchange  or  mutual  substitution. 
Interpreters,  in  seeking  a  factitious  antithesis  between  the  verses,  have 
entirely  overlooked  the  natural  antithesis  between  the  clauses  of  this  one 
verse.  They  have  supposed  the  contrast  intended  to  be  that  between  ser- 
vitude and  priesthood  :  "  they  shall  be  your  servants,  and  ye  shall  be  their 
priests."  ]}ut  we  have  seen  already  that  the  fifth  verse  ciuiuot,  in  consist- 
ency with  chap.  Ixvi.  10,  denote  anything  but  intimate  conjunction  and 
participation.  The  true  antithesis  is  :  "  ye  shall  be  their  priests,  and  they 
shall  be  your  purveyors ;  you  shall  supply  their  spiritual  wants,  and  they 
shall  supply  your  temporal  wants."  This  explanation  of  the  verse,  to 
which  we  have  been  naturally  led  by  philological  induction  and  the  context, 
coincides  in  a  manner  too  remarkable  to  be  considered  accidental,  with  the 
words  of  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  llomans  of  the  contribution  made  by  the 
churches  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem  :  It  hath 
phased  them  verily,  and  (heir  debtors  they  are  {i.  e.  tliey  have  chosen  to  do 
it,  and  indeed  were  bound  to  do  it) ;  fur  if  the  Gentiles  have  been  made  par- 
takers of  their  spiritual  thiiufs,  their  duly  is  aho  to  minister  unto  them  in 
carnal  thiiigs.  (lioni.  xv.  27.)  This  may  seem,  however,  to  detennine  the 
object  of  address  to  bo  the  Jews  ;  but  no  such  inference  can  fairly  bo 
deduced  from  the  words  of  the  apostle,  who  is  only  making  one  specific 
application  of  the  general  truth  taught  by  the  Prophet.  What  was  true  of 
the  Gentile  converts  then,  in  relation  to  the  Jewish  Christians  as  their 
mother-church,  is  no  less  true  of  the  heathen  now,  or  even  of  converted 
Jews,  in  reference  to  the  Christians  who  impart  the  gospel  to  them.  The 
essential  idea  in  both  places  is,  that  the  church,  the  chosen  people,  or  the 
Israel  of  God,  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  communicating  spiritual  things 
to  those  without,  and  entitled  in  return  to  an  increase  of  outward  strength 
from  those  who  thus  become  incorporated  with  it. — But  it  is  not  merely  in 
this  lov^er  sense  that  the  people  of  God  are  in  the  law  (Kxod.  xix.  20)  and 
the  gospel  (1  Peter  i.  8),  as  well  as  in  the  prophets,  represeiittd  as  the  minis- 
ters and  priests  of  God.  Not  only  as  instructors  and  reclaimers  of  the 
unbelieving  world  do  they  enjoy  this  sacred  dignity,  but  also  as  the  only 
representatives  of  their  Great  High  Priest,  in  him  and  through  him  pos- 
sessing free  access  to  tlio  fountain  of  salvation  and  the  throne  of  grace. 
(Heb.  iv.  14-lG.)  In  tliis  respect,  as  in  every  other  which  concerns  the 
method  of  salvation  and  access  to  God,  there  is  no  distinction  of  Jew  and 


Ver.  7,  8.J  ISAIAH  LXI.  103 

Gentile,  any  more  than  of  Greek  and  barbarian,  male  and  female,  bond  and 
free  ;  but  all  "  are  Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's,"  and  all  alike  are  priests  and 
ministers  of  God. — It  only  remains  to  add,  that  on  the  principle  of  limiting 
this  prophecy  to  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews,  it  might  have  been  sup- 
posed that  this  verse  would  be  literally  understood  as  promising  both 
temporal  and  spiritual  superiority  to  other  nations  ;  but,  according  to  the 
able  representative  of  that  opinion,  who  has  been  so  often  quote;!,  it  "  im- 
plies holiness,  spirituality,  and  dovotedness  to  the  service  of  God ;  so 
abundant  shall  be  the  supplies,  that  there  shall  be  no  absorption  of  time  by 
thy  cares  and  distraction  of  business."  This,  it  seems,  is  the  literal  inter- 
pretation of  the  promise  that  the  Jews  shall  be  the  priests  and  ministers  of 
God,  and  as  such  shall  consume  the  wealth  of  the  nations  and  have  their 
riches  at  command ;  for  such  is  the  meaning  put  upon  •ITf.^JpJil  by  Hender- 
son, who  traces  it  to  "1P^,  in  the  sense  of  commanding.  Why  there  is  any 
less  "  violence"  in  this  interpretation  of  the  verse  before  us  than  in  the  refer- 
ence of  ver.  4  to  the  universal  spread  of  the  gospel,  does  not  appear. 

7.  Instead  of  j/our  shame  {ye  shall  have)  double,  and  (instead  of  their) 
confusion,  thcij  shall  celebrate  their  portion ;  therefore  in  their  land  shall  they 
inherit  double,  everlasting  joy  shall  be  to  them.  Vitringa  and  Kosenmiiller 
understand  the  therefore  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause  as  deciding 
that  the  recompence  must  be  described  exclusively  in  that  clause,  while  the 
first  is  wholly  occupied  with  the  account  of  their  previous  suft'erings  : 
"  Instead  of  your  double  shame,  and  instead  of  your  lamenting  (or  their 
exulting),  that  confusion  was  their  portion,"  &c.  From  this  and  other 
similar  unnatural  constructions,  Geseuius  and  all  the  later  writers  have 
gone  back  to  the  one  given  in  the  Targum  and  by  Jarchi,  which  makes 
double  refer  not  to  shame  but  recompense,  and  gives  -ISIJ  the  same  subject 
with  the  other  verbs.  It  is  still  considered  necessary,  however,  to  assume 
an  enallage  of  person,  so  that  your  shame  and  their  portion  may  relate  to 
the  same  subject.  It  is  not  impossible,  however,  that  the  Prophet  has  in 
view  the  same  two  classes  who  are  distinctl}'  mentioned  in  the  preced- 
ing verses;  a  construction  which  would  not  do  away  with  the  enallage, 
but  go  far  to  confirm  the  explanation  which  has  been  already  given  of  those 
verses  as  descriptive  of  mutual  participation. — There  is  no  need  of  explain- 
ing Qf^^n  with  Gesenius  as  an  accusative  of  place,  or  supplying  /?i  before  it, 

the  older  writers ;  since  the  verb  may  govern  it  directly,  as  in 
Ps.  li.  16,  lix.  17. — Lowth  complains  of  the  confusion  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
and  applies  an  extraordinary  remedy,  by  substituting  the  Peshito  version, 
after  first  amending  it. — According  to  Henderson,  this  verse  means  that  the 
honour  conferred  by  God  upon  the  restoi'ed  Jews,  and  the  estimation  in 
which  they  shall  be  held  by  believing  Gentiles,  will  far  overbalance  the  con- 
tempt to  which  they  have  been  subject.  The  limitation  of  the  passage  to  the 
"  restoi'ed  Jews"  is  as  groundless  and  arbitrary  here  as  elsewhere. — Double 
is  used  indefinitely  to  denote  a  large  proportion.     (Compare  chap.  xl.  2.) 

8.  For  I  am  Jehovah,  loving  justice,  hating  (that  which  is)  taken  aivay 
unjustly,  and  I  ivill  give  their  hire  truly,  and  an  everlasting  covenant  I 
strike  for  them.  The  Vulgate  and  the  rabbins  give  n?iy  its  usual  sense  of 
a  burnt- offering,  and  explain  the  clause  to  mean  that  God  hates  unjust 
violence,  especially  (or  even)  in  religious  ofi'erings.  The  modern  writers 
generally  follow  the  Septuagint  in  making  it  synonymous  with  np^y  (which 
is  actually  found  in  a  few  manuscripts),  an  explanation  countenanced  by  the 
undoubted  use  of  the  corresponding  plural  and  paragogic  forms  in  that 
Bense.      (Job  v.   16,  Ps.  Iviii.  3,  Ixiv.  7.)      Jerome's  objection  that  all 


404  ISAIAH  LXr.  [Veh.  9,  10, 

robbeiy  is  uujust,  would  apply  to  a  uiuhitude  of  other  places  wlioro  there 
seoms  to  be  a  redundance  of  expression,  and  proceeds  upon  the  false 
assumption  that  n\  necissarily  expn-sscs  tho  complex  idea  robbery,  whereas 
it  miiy  he  here  used  in  its  primary'  and  strict  sense  of  violent  seizure  or 
privation,  the  idea  of  injustice,  which  is  commonly  iniplifd,  hein^'  here 
expressed. — For  the  usage  of  npy?,  see  above,  on  chap.  xl.  11,  and  for  that 
of  rin?  n^3,  on  chaps,  xxviii.  15,  Iv.  8. — This  verse  is  commonly  applied  to 
the  violence  prnctised  upon  Israel  by  the  Ikbylonians.  (Compare  chap, 
xlii.  24.)  It  is  rathir  an  enunciation  of  the  i^enerul  truth,  that  the  divine 
justice  renders  absolutely  necessar}'  the  destruction  of  his  obstinate 
enemies,  and  the  deliverance  of  his  people  from  oppression.  (Compare 
2  Thess.  i.  6-8.) 

9.   77ien  shall  he  known  among  the  nations  their  seed,  and  their  issue  in  thr 
midst  of  the  peoples.     All  seeing  them  shall  acknowledge  them  that  they  are 
a  seed  Jrliorah   hiis  blessed.     Vitringa,   Gestnius,  and  some  later  writers, 
give  to  yrtlJ  the  emphatic  sense  of  being  famous  or  illustrious,  as  in  Ps. 
Ixxvi.  2,  where  the  parallel  expression  is  iOP'  ?n3.     But  in  the  case  before 
us,  the  parallelism,   far  from   requiring  this  peculiar  sense,  requires  the 
nsnal  one  oi  being  hnmru,  as  corresponding  better  to  the  plirase  they  sluill 
reer guise  them.     Thus  understood,  the  fir.-t  clause  means  that  they  shall  be 
known  among  the  nations  in  their  true  character  as  a  seed  or  race  highly 
favoured  of  Jehovah.      Ismie  means   progeny  or  oilspring,   as  in  chap, 
xlviii.  19.     In  order  to  apply  this   to  the  restored  Jews,  we  must  depart 
from  the  literal  and  obvious  import  of  noiung  r.nd  in  the  midst,  and  under- 
stand them  as  denoting  merely  that   they  shall   be  heard   of ;  for  how  can 
they  be  said  to  be  among  and  in  the  midst  of  the  nations  at  the  very  time 
when  they  are  gathered  from  them  to  their  own  land.     And  yet  the  whole 
connection  seems  to  favour  the  first  meaning,  and  to  shew  that  they  are 
here  described  as  being  scattered  through  the  n!itit)ns,  and  there  recognised 
by  clear  distinctive  marks  as  being  God's  peculiar  people,  just  as  the  Jews 
took  knowledge  of  Peter  and  John  that  they  had  been  with  Jesus.     (Acts 
iv.  in.)     It  may  be  on  account  of  this  apparent  inconsistency  between  the 
obvious  fionso  of  this  verse  and  his  own  adopted  "principle,"  that  Hender- 
son has  no  remark  upon  it,  save  that  "  2  in  D^T3»  is  pleonastic."     Some 
of  the  older  writers,  to  avoid  this  nssnmption,  render  *?  because,  "  all  that 
see  them  shall  acknowledge  them,  because  they  are  a  seed  which  Jehovah 
has  blessed."     But,  as  Vitringa  well  observes,  the  verb  requires  a  more 
specific  statement  of  its  object.     Gesenius  and  the   later  writers  liken  the 
construction  to  that  in  Gen.  i.  i,  God  saw  the  light  that  it  wa'^  good  ;  not 
simply  saw  that  the  light  was  good,  but  saw  the  light  itselt',  and  in  so  doing 
saw  that  it  was  good.     So  hero  the  meaning  is  not  merely  that  all  seeing 
them  shall  acknowledge  that  they  are  a  seed,  Sec,  but  that  all  seeing  theui 
shall  recognise  them  by  n  cognising  the  efl'eets  and  evidences  of  the  divine 
blessing. — The  ellipsis  of  the  relative  is  the  same  in  Hebrew  ami  colloquial 
Enu'lish. — The  tnie  application  of  the  verse  is  to  the   Israel  of  God  in  its 
ditftnion  among  all  tht!  nations  of  the   earth,  who  shall  be  constrained  by 
what  they  soc  of  their  spirit,  character,  and  conduct,  to   acknowledge   Unit 
Ihcy  are  the  seed  wliich  the  Lord  hath  blessed.     The  glorious  fulfilment  of 
this  promise  in  its  original  at;d  proper  sense,  may  bo  seen  alnaly  in  the 
influence  exerted  by  the  clorjuent  example  of  the  missionary  on  the  most 
ignorant  and  cornipted  heathen,  without  waiting  for  the  future  restoration 
of  the  Jews  to  the  la'id  of  their  fathers. 

10.   (/  will)  Joy,  I  will  Joy  in  Jehovah,  let  my  soul  exult  in  my  (!od ;  for 


Vkr.  11.]  ISAIAH  LXII.  405 

he  hath  clothed  me  with  garments  of  salvation,  a  mantle  of  righteousness  has  he 
put  on  me,  as  the  bridegroom  adjusts  his  priestly  crown,  and  as  the  bride 
arrays  her  jewels.  Vitringa  here  leads  his  chorus  off  the  stage,  where  he 
has  kept  it  since  the  beginning  of  ver.  4,  and  lets  the  Church  come  on,  but 
whether  as  a  male  or  female  he  considers  a  doubtful  and  perplexing  question. 
To  a  reader  unencumbered  with  this  clumsy  theatrical  machinery,  it  must 
be  evident  that  these  are  the  words  of  the  same  speaker  who  appears  at  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter  and  the  next.  J.  L).  Michaelis  supposes  an 
allusion  to  the  oriental  practice  of  bestowing  the  caftan  or  honorarj'  dress 
upon  distinguished  culprits  who  have  been  acquitted.  Luzzatto,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  assumption  of  a  root  ^V.)  in  this  one  case,  reads  'JP^!  from  '"IPV  J 
but  this,  besides  being  arbitrary,  throws  the  syntax  of  the  tenses  into  a  con- 
fusion which,  although  it  may  be  elsewhere  unavoidable,  is  not  to  be  assumed 
in  any  case  without  necessity.— nnj^  is  to  put  on  or  wear,  but  always  used 
in  reference  to  ornaments.  Dy?  may  signify  not  merely  gems,  but  orna- 
mental dress  in  general.  (See  Deut.  xxii.  5.) — Gesenius  in  his  Commen- 
tary gives  jn?  the  general  sense  of  beautifying  or  adorning ;  but  in  his 
Thesaurus  he  agrees  with  the  modern  writers  in  acknowledging  the  deriva- 
tion from  ir)2  a  priest,  for  which  no  satisfactory  etymology  has  yet  been 
proposed.  "  As  the  bridegroom  priests  his  turban."  So  Aquila  'm;  wj/m- 
fiov  iiPaTSvo/Mivcv  6ri:pav<^.  The  reference  is  no  doubt  to  the  sacerdotal 
mitre,  which  was  probably  regarded  as  a  model  of  ornamental  head-dress, 
and  to  which  l^'f  is  explicitly  applied  (Exod.  xxxix.  28,  Ezek.  xliv.  18). 
Salvation  and  righteousness  are  here  combined,  as  often  elsewhere,  to 
denote  the  cause  and  the  effect,  the  justice  of  God  as  displayed  in  the  sal- 
vation of  his  people.  (See  under  ver.  8.)  Or  righteousness  may  be 
referred  to  the  people,  as  denoting  the  practical  justification  afforded  by 
their  signal  deliverance  from  suffering. 

11.  For  as  the  earth  puts  forth  its  growth,  and  as  the  garden  makes  its 
plants  to  grow,  so  shall  the  Lord  Jehovah  male  to  grow  righteousness  and 
praise  before  all  the  nations.  Compare  chap.  xlv.  8,  and  I's.  Ixxxv.  11, 
12.  The  exact  construction  of  the  first  clause  may  be,  like  the  earth 
(which)  puts  forth ;  or  the  idiom  may  resemble  that  in  vulgar  English 
which  employs  like  as  a  conjunction  no  less  than  a  preposition,  like  the 
earth  puts  j'orlh.  (See  above  chap.  viii.  23,  and  vol.  i.  p.  19G.)  The 
studied  assonance  of  "^npv,  n"'pyi!l  and  O^PV!,  is  retained  in  the  latest  ver- 
sions after  the  example  of  the  Vulgate,  which  has  germen,  genni  :at,  and 
germinabit.  }3y  praise  we  are  to  understand  the  manifestation  of  excel- 
lence in  general,  by  righteousness  that  of  moral  excellence  in  particular. 
The  confusion  of  these  terms  by  Vitringa  and  some  later  writers,  as  all 
denoting  salvation,  is  as  bad  in  its  effect  as  it  is  groundless  in  its  principle. 
Knobel  thinks  it  probable  that  the  writer  had  by  this  time  heard  the  news 
of  Cyrus's  conquests  in  the  west,  by  which  his  somewhat  languid  hopes  had 
been  revived.  But  there  is  nothing  either  in  the  text  or  context  to  restrict 
this  verse  to  the  former  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian  exile, 
any  more  than  to  their  future  restoration  to  the  Holy  Land.  The  glory  of 
the  promise  is  its  universality,  in  which  the  fulfilment  will  no  doubt  be  co- 
extensive with  the  prophecy  itself. 

CHAPTER   LXII. 

TiiK  words  of  the  great  Deliverer  are  continued  from  the  foregoing 
chapter.     He  will  not  rest  until  the  glorious  change  in  the  condition  of  his 


406  ISAIAH  LXII.  [Vki'..  1,  2. 

people  is  accomplished,  ver.  1.  They  shall  be  recognised  by  kinps  and 
nations  as  the  people  of  Jehovah,  vers.  2,  3.  She  who  seemed  to  be  for- 
saken is  still  his  spouse,  vers.  4,5.  The  church  is  required  to  watch  and 
pray  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  vers.  G,  7.  God  has  sworn  to  protect 
her  and  supply  her  wants,  vers.  8,  9.  Instead  of  a  single  nation,  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  shall  flow  unto  her,  ver.  10.  The  good  news  of  sal- 
vation shall  no  longer  be  confined,  but  univerfcully  dilVusod,  ver.  11.  The 
glory  of  the  church  is  the  redemption  of  the  world,  ver.  12. 

1.  For  ZioTtS  tiake  I  will  not  be  still,  and  fur  Jerumlcin  s  xale  I  tctll  not 
rest  until  her  righteousness  go  forth  as  brightness,  and  her  salvation  as  a 
lamp  (that)  bunieth.     llitzig  argues  from  the  absence  of  the  copulative  par- 
ticle, that  this  is  the   beginning  of  a  new  discourse,  and  that  if  the  Pro- 
phet be  the  speaker  hero,  he  cannot  be  the  speaker  in   the  two  preceding 
verses.      Both    these    conclusions   are    unfounded ;    since  the   particle   is 
frequently  omitted  where  the  same  subject  is  still  treated,  and  in  the  same 
manner.     On  the  other  hand,  the  Prophet  constantly  assumes  the  person 
and  expresses  the  feelings  of  difltrent  chiiraclers  in  this  greiit  drama,  with- 
out any  express   intimation  of  the  change  in  the  text  itself.     Ivimchi  fol- 
lows the  Targum  iu  explaining  this  verse  as  the  language  of  Jehovah,  who, 
as  J.  I).  Michaelis  thinks,   is   here    replying  to   the  thanksgiving  of  the 
church  in  the  foregoing  verses.     The  rest  and  silence  must  be  then  under- 
stood to  denote   inaction  and  indifference,  as  in  chap.  xlii.  14.     In  like 
manner  Grotius  makes  it  a  specific  promise  of  Jehovah  that  he  will  not 
rest  until  Cyrus  is  victorious.     Cocceius  supposes  the  Messiah  to  be  speak- 
ing, and  assuring  his  people  of  his  intercession.     Henderson  also,  on  the 
ground  of  the  frequency  with  which  the  Redeemer  is  thus  abruptly  intro- 
duced by  our  Prophet,  supposes   the  Messiah  to  be  hero  represented  as 
interesting  himself  for  the  prosperity  of  Zion,  and  assuring  her  that  through 
his  mediatorial  intercession  the  Jews  shall  be  restored  to  their  standing 
in  the   church  of  God.      Yitringa  thinks  it  clear  from  the  analogy  of  ver. 
G,  that  the   silence  here   prohibited   is  that  of  Zion's   watchmen   or  tho 
rulers  of  the  church,  of  whom  he  accordingly  makes  up  a  chorus  in  accord- 
ance with  his  favourite  theatrical  hypothesis.     A  simpler  and  more   ob- 
vious sense  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopted,  that   the   Prophet  himself 
declares  his  resolution  not  to  cease  from  tho  prediction  of   Zion's  future 
glory,  as  Forerius  supposes,  but   according  to  the  general  opinion,  from 
prayer  to  God  on  her  behalf.     Eichhorn  absurdly  ascribed  the  passsage  to 
a  Jew  in  Palestine  who  wrote   it  on  hearing  of  the  edict  by  Cyrus  for 
the  restoration  of  the  exiles.      Perhaps  tho  most  satisfactory  conclusion 
is,  that  if  the  Prophet  hero  speaks  of  himself,  he  also  speaks  by  impli- 
cation of  his  associates  and  successors  in  the  office,  nut  excluding  Christ 
as  tho  last  and  greatest  of  the  series  ;    so  that  several  of  the  exegetical 
hypotheses  already  mentioned  may  in  this  way  be  combined  and  reconciled. 
If  an  exclusive  sui)ject  must  be  chosen,  it  is  no  doubt  tho  same  as  in  the 
first  verse  of  the  foregoing  chapter.     Tho  sense  of  ligbtoousnoss  and  silva- 
tionisthe  same  as  in  chap.  Ixi.  10,  and  elsewhere.     By  a  singular  change 
of  the  abstract  to  the  concrete,  tho  Vulgate  h&sjuslm  ejus  et  salvator  ejtis. 
— The    going  forth  hero  mentioned  is  tho  same  ns  in  Ps.  xix.  G,  7  ;  and 
brightness,  or  as  Lowth  translates  it,  strong  light  may  specifically  signify 
the  dawn  of  day  or  tho  rising  of  the  sun  as  in  Prov.  iv.  18.      Lowth's 
version  of  the  parallel  expression  (Ihzing  torch)  is  stronger  than  the  com- 
mon version,  but  adheres  less  closely  to  the  form  of  the  original. 

2.  And  nations  Jiall  see  thy  righteousness,  and  all  lings  thg  glory  ;  and 


Ver.  3.]  ISAIAH  LXII.  407 

there  shall  he  called  to  thee  a  new  name,  which  the  tnouth  of  Jehovah  shall  titter 
(or  pronounce  distinctly).  Here  again  the  Vulgate  applies  the  abstract 
terms  to  Christ,  by  rendering  them  justum  tuum,  inc^ylum  tuum.  Grotius 
retains  this  inaccurate  translation,  but  applies  the  epithets  to  Cjtus,  as  the 
illustrious  patron  of  the  Jews,  and  at  the  same  time  a  type  of  Christ.  The 
substitution  of  glory  for  salvation  does  not  seem  to  be  regarded  by  any  of 
the  modern  writers  as  a  proof  that  salvation  means  glory,  although  quite 
as  clear  as  that  riyldeousness  means  salvation.  The  mention  of  kings  is 
intended  to  imply  the  submission  even  of  the  highest  ranks  to  this  new 
power.  (Compare  chaps,  xlix.  7,  23,  Hi.  15.)  Vitringa's  explanation  of 
•^t<T  as  meaning  to  experience  or  to  know  in  a  spiritual  sense,  at  once  per- 
verts the  Prophet's  meaning,  and  enfeebles  his  expression.  The  idea  evidently 
is  that  they  shall  witness  it  and  stand  astonished. — The  netv  name  may  be 
that  which  is  afterwards  stated  in  ver.  4,  or  the  expression  may  be  understood 
more  generally  as  denoting  change  of  condition  for  the  better.  (See  above, 
chaps,  i.  26,  Ix.  14,  and  compare  Jer.  iii.  IG,  xxxiii.  IG,  Ezek.  xlviii,  35,  Rev. 
ii.  17,  iii.  12.)  Some  one  quoted  by  Vitringa  supposes  an  allusion  to  the 
change  in  the  name  of  the  chosen  people  from  Jew  to  Christian ;  but  the  former 
name  is  still  applied  to  the  spiritual  Israel,  in  Rom.  ii.  9,  and  Rev.  ii.  9. 
(See  below,  on  chap.  Ixv.  15.)  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  an  allusion  to  the 
oriental  practice  of  impo'^ing  new  names  upon  towns  which  have  been  ruined 
and  rebuilt.  The  translation  of  the  last  verb  by  Lowth  (shall  fix  upon  thee), 
and  by  Noyes  [shall  give  thee),  does  not  convey  its  exact  sense,  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  lexicons,  is  that  of  pronouncing  or  uttering  distinctly,  though 
the  common  version  (shall  name)  is  justified  hj  usage.  (Compare  Num.  i.  17, 
1  Chron.  xii.  31,  Amos  vi.  1.)  Henderson  finds  no  difficulty  in  admitting 
that  this  clause  is  not  to  be  understood  of  a  mere  name,  but  has  special 
reference  to  the  state  and  character,  according  to  the  common  idiom  by 
■which  anything  is  said  to  be  called  what  it  really  is.  Is  it  absolutely  cer- 
tain, then,  that  Israel,  Jerusalem,  and  Zion,  are  in  all  cases  strictly  national 
and  local  designations,  and  that  they  never  have  respect  to  state  and  cha- 
racter, rather  than  to  natural  descent  or  geographical  position  ? 

3.  And  than  shall  be  a  crown  of  beauty  in  Jehovah'' s  hand,  and  a  diadem  of 
royalty  in  the  palm  if  thy  God.  The  only  difficulty  in  this  verse  has  respect 
to  the  crown's  being  twice  emphatically  placed  in  the  hand  and  not  upon 
the  head.  Aben  Ezra  refers  to  the  practice  of  wearing  wreaths  and  circlets 
on  tlie  arms ;  but  the  text  speaks  expressly  of  the  hand  and  of  the  palm, 
and  both  the  ornaments  described  are  such  as  were  worn  upon  the  head. 
Some  of  the  older  writers  quote  Suetonius's  account  of  the  athletse  as  wear- 
ing the  Olympic  crown  upon  the  head  and  carrying  the  Pythian  in  the 
hand  ;  but  this,  as  Rosenmliller  well  says,  was  a  mere  act  of  necessity,  and 
what,  is  here  said  has  respect  to  royal,  not  athletic  crowns.  Ewald  agrees 
with  Brentius  in  supposing  thut  Jehovah  is  here  represented  as  holding  the 
crown  in  his  hand  to  admire  it ;  Cocceiiis  and  Ewald,  for  the  purpose  of 
exhibiting  it  to  others  ;  Piscator,  for  the  purpose  of  crowning  himself. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  takes  in  the  hand  of  God  to  mean  at  his  disposal,  or  bestowed 
by  him.  This  is  a  good  sense  in  itself ;  but  upon  whom  could  Zion  or 
Jerusalem  be  thus  bestowed  ?  Hitzig  and  Henderson  think  it  perfectly 
obvious  that  it  would  be  incongruous  to  place  the  crown  upon  Jehovah's 
head  ;  and  as  it  could  not  be  placed  upon  the  ground,  as  in  chap,  xxviii.  1, 
the  only  place  remaining  was  the  hand  !  Gesenius  understands  the  hand 
of  God  to  mean  his  power  or  protection,  which  approaches  nearly  to  Vit- 
ringa's explanation  of  the  phrase  as  meaning  he  shall  hold  it  fast,  or  keep 


408  ISAIAH  LXII.  Veb.  4,  5. 

it  safe.  (Compare  Rev.  iii.  11.)  Maurcr  gives  the  «:ame  sense  to  the 
phrase,  but  connects  it  with  the  subject  of  the  verse,  and  not  with  the  figure 
of  a  crown  ;  as  if  it  had  been  said,  under  his  protection  thou  shall  be  a 
crown  of  beauty  and  a  diadem  of  royalty. — Lowth's  version  of  the  last 
phrase,  in  the  graxp  of  thy  God,  is  vigorous  but  inexact.  The  true  sense  is 
the  one  expressed  by  Henderson  (the  palm).  The  original  combination  of 
two  nouns  is  more  expressive  than  the  adjective  construction  into  which  it 
is  resolved  by  most  translators.  The  hcautiful  crown  ofLowtli.  and  the 
magnificent  croicn  of  Noyes,  are  much  inferior  to  the  literal  translation, 
crou-n  of  bcantij  or  of  glory,  and  not  required  by  the  parallelism,  since  the 
corresponding  phrase  strictly  means  a  diadem  of  royalty.  According  to 
Gataker,  the  last  word  is  added  to  distinguish  the  T^V  here  mentioned 
from  the  sacerdotal  turban  or  mitre. 

4.  No  more  shall  it  he  called  to  thee  (shalt  thou  1)0  called;  .-hubah  [For- 
mken),  and  thy  land  shall  no  more  be  called  Shemamah  {Desolate) ;  but  thou 
shalt  he  called  Jfephzihah  {my  delight  is  in  her),  and  thy  land  Jieulah  {Mar- 
ried), for  Jehovah  delights  in  thee,  and  thy  land  shall  he  married.  The 
joj-ful  change  of  condition  is  further  expressed  in  the  Prophet's  favourite 
manner,  by  significant  names.  The  common  version  not  only  mars  the 
beauty  of  the  passage,  but  renders  it  in  some  degree  unintelligible  to  the 
Knglish  reader,  by  translating  the  first  two  names  and  retaining  the  others 
in  their  Hebrew  dress.  It  is  obvious  that  all  four  should  be  treated  alike, 
t.  e.  that  all  the  Hebrew  forms  should  be  retained,  or  none.  Henderson 
prefers  the  latter  method  on  the  ground  that  "  the  names  are  merely  sym- 
bolical, and  will  never  be  employed  as  proper  names."  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  they  were  all  familiar  to  the  Jews  as  female  names  in  real 
life.  This  we  know  to  have  been  the  case  with  two  of  them  :  the  mother 
of  Jehoshaphat  was  named  Azubah  (1  Kings  xxii.  42),  and  the  mother  of 
Manasseh  Hephzibah  (2  Kings  xxi.  1).  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  retain 
the  Hebrew  forms,  in  order  to  give  them  an  air  of  reality  as  proper  names, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  render  them  intelligible  by  translation.  In  the 
last  clause  there  is  reference  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  verb,  viz,  that 
of  owning  or  possessing  ;  and  as  the  inhabitants  of  towns  are  sometimes 
called  in  Hebrew  their  possessors,  W'?]}2  a  noun  derived  from  this  xcry  verb 
(Joshua  xxiv.  11,  Judges  ix.  2,  2  Sam.  xxi.  12,  compared  with  2  Sam. 
ii.  4),  its  use  here  would  suggest,  as  at  least  one  meaning  of  the  promise, 
thy  land  shall  be  inhabited,  and  so  it  is  translated  in  the  Targum. 

5.  For  (as)  a  young  man  marrieth  a  virgin,  {so)  shall  thy  sons  marry  thee, 
and  {with)  the  Joy  of  a  bridegroom  over  a  bride  shall  thy  God  rejoice  over  thee. 
The  particles  of  comparison  are  omitted  as  in  Jer.  xvii.  21.  Perhaps  it 
would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  the  comparison  is  only  an  implied  one, 
and  thnt  the  strict  translation  is.  "  a  young  man  man-ieth  a  virgin,  tliy  sons 
shall  marry  thee,"  leaving  the  copula  and  so  to  be  suggested  1  y  the  context. 
Bo  in  the  other  clause  there  is  no  absolute  need  of  assuming  an  ellipsis, 
since  the  Hebrew  idiom  admits  of  such  expressions  as  joyimi  the  joy  of  a 
bridegroom,  just  as  wo  may  say  in  English  a  man  lives  the  life  of  a  saint, 
or  dies  the  death  of  the  righteous,  both  which  combinations  occur  in  our 
translation  of  the  l^ibie.  (Gal.  ii.  20,  Num.  xxiii.  10.)  In  order  to  avoid 
the  seerning  incongruity  of  a  mother's  being  married  to  her  sons,  Lowth 
reads  "^".^2,  thy  liuilder  or  Founder  ;  an  emendation  which  J.  I).  Michaelis 
rejects  in  his  notes  upcm  Lowth's  Lectures,  but  adopts  in  his  translation  of 
Isaiah.  To  Gescnius's  objection,  that  the  pluralis  majcstaticus  is  construed 
with  a  verb  in  the  singular,  Henderson  conclusively  replies  by  citing  Gen. 


Ver.  G-9.]  ISAIAH  LXIL  409 

XX.  13,  XXXV.  7,  2  Sam.  vii.  23.  The  true  objection  to  the  change  is  that 
it  is  not  necessary.  The  solution  of  the  difficult)^  in  the  common  text  is 
afforded  by  the  explanation  already  given  of  the  strict  sense  of  ?y3  and  the 
usage  of  the  derivative  noun  ^S??.  As  ^VSJil  in  ver.  4  really  moans  thou 
shalt  be  inhabited,  so  WV?"!  here  conveys  the  same  idea  as  well  as  that  of 
man-iage,  and  thy  sons  has  reference,  not  to  the  latter,  but  the  former  sense. 
Vitringa  gives  substantially  the  same  expliination,  when  he  says  that  the 
Prophet  mixes  two  distinct  metaphors  in  one  expression. 

6,  7.  On  thj  walls,  0  Jerusalem,  I  hare  set  watehmeu  ;  all  the  day  and  all 
the  night  long  they  shall  not  be  silent.  Ye  that  remind  Jehovah,  let  there  be 
no  rest  to  you,  and  give  no  rest  to  him,  until  he  establish  and  until  he  2}l(ice 
Jerusalem  a  praise  in  the  earth.  According  to  Vitringa,  the  prophetic 
chorus  is  here  relieved  by  an  ecclesiastical  one  ;  and  as  the  first  words 
do  not  well  suit  this  imaginary  speaker,  he  i-emoves  all  difhculty  by  sup- 
plying thus  saith  Jehovah.  To  the  more  obvious  supposition  that  Jehovah 
is  himself  the  speaker,  he  makes  a  very  singular  objection,  viz.  that  the 
Prophet  would  hardly  have  introduced  God  as  speaking  for  so  short  a  time. 
According  to  the  Targum  and  the  Rabbins,  he  is  here  represented  as 
appointing  angels  to  keep  watch  over  the  ruined  walls  of  Zion.  Ewald 
adopts  a  similar  interpretation,  and  refers  to  Zech.  i.  12-17,  upon  which 
the  Jewish  exposition  may  be  founded.  Gesenius  understands  these  as  the 
words  of  the  Prophet  himself,  and  by  watchmen,  devout  Jews  among  the 
ruins  of  Jerusalem,  awaiting  the  return  of  the  exiles,  and  praying  to  God  for 
it.  For  this  limitation  of  the  passage  to  Jerusalem  in  ruins,  and  to  the 
period  of  the  exile,  there  is  not  the  least  foundation  in  the  text.  The  promise 
is  a  general  one,  or  rather  the  command,  that  those  who  are  constituted 
guardians  of  the  church  should  be  importunate  in  prayer  to  God  on  her 
behalf.  DTI^^T'^l'  admits  of  three  interpretations,  all  consistent  with  Isaiah's 
usage.  In  chap,  xxxvi.  3,  22,  it  seems  to  mean  an  official  recorder  or  his- 
toriographer. In  chap.  Ixvi.  3,  it  means  one  burning  incense  as  a  memorial 
oblation.  Hence  i^^??^?,  the  name  used  in  the  law  of  Moses  to  denote  such 
an  offering.  (See  Lev.  ii.  2,  v.  12,  xxiv.  7,  Num.  v.  26.)  In  chap,  xliii. 
26,  the  verb  means  to  remind  God  of  something  which  he  seems  to  have 
forgotten ;  and  as  this  is  an  appropriate  description  of  importunate  inter- 
cession, it  is  here  entitled  to  the  preference.  Gesenius  speaks  of  a  belief 
in  the  effect  of  such  entreaties  as  peculiar  to  the  ancient  orientals  ;  but  our 
Lord  himself  expressly  teaches  it  (Luke  xviii.  1),  and  Tertullian  finely  says 
of  it,  /iCBC  vvi  Tk'o  grata  est. 

8.  Sworn  hath  Jehovah  by  his  right  hand,  and  by  liis  arm  of  strength,  If 
I  give  (i.  e.  I  will  not  give)  thy  corn  any  more  as  food  to  thine  enemies,  and 
if  the  sons  of  the  oxitlaiid  shall  drink  thy  new  iviue  which  thou  hast  laboured 
in  (I  am  not  God).  On  the  elliptical  formula  of  swearing,  see  above,  on 
chap.  xxii.  14,  and  vol.  i.  p.  385.  The  declaration,  though  conditional  in 
form,  is  in  fact  an  absolute  negation.  In  swearing  by  his  hand  and  arm, 
the  usual  symbols  of  strength,  he  pledges  his  omnipotence  for  the  fulfilment 
of  the  promise,  "  As  sure  as  I  am  almighty,  thou  shalt  suffer  this  no  more." 
— For  the  true  sense  of  "i^.r^J?,  see  above,  on  chap.  Ivi.  3. 

9.  For  those  gathering  it  shcdl  cat  it,  and  shall  praise  Jehovah,  and  those 
collecting  it  shall  drink  it  in  my  holy  courts  (or  in  the  courts  of  my  sanc- 
tuary). The  ^3  is  not  directly  equivalent  to  but,  as  some  explain  it,  but 
retains  its  proper  meaning,  in  relation  to  an  intermediate  thought  not  ex- 
pressed. As  if  he  had  said,  it  shall  not  be  so,  or  it  shall  be  far  otherwise, 
because  those  gathering,  &c.     Lowth  has  they  that  reap  the  harvest,  and 


410  ISAIAH  LXII.  [Yer.  10. 

they  that  tjalht'r  the  vintage,  which,  although  correct  in  sense,  is  not  a 
version,  but  a  paraphrase.  The  indefinite  it  takes  the  place  both  of  corn 
and  wiue,  but  all  ambifruity  is  removed  by  the  use  of  the  verbs  eat  and 
drink.  Gesenius  and  llosenmiiller  agree  with  Grotius  and  the  other  early 
writers  in  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
(See  Lev.  xix.  '23-25,  Dcut.  xii.  17,  18,  xiv.  23.)  But  Hitzig  and  Ivnobel 
refer  what  is  hero  said  simply  to  the  sacerdotal  standing  to  be  occupied 
by  Israel  in  reference  to  the  Gentiles.  (See  above,  on  chap.  hi.  6.)  To 
the  former  supposition,  Kuobcl  ol)jocts  that  the  Levitical  feasts  had  exclu- 
sive reference  to  the  tithes  and  first-fruits,  whereas  the  promise  here  is 
universal.  This  appears  to  be  a  needless  refinement,  and  is  wholly  insuffi- 
cient t )  explain  away  the  obvious  allusion  in  the  terms  of  the  promise  to 
the  ancient  institutions  of  the  law.  That  these,  however,  are  but  types 
and  emblems  of  abundance,  and  security,  and  liberty  of  worship,  is  acknow- 
ledged even  by  that  school  of  interpreters  supposed  to  be  most  strenuous 
in  favour  of  attaching  to  these  promises  their  strictest  sense.  Thus  Hen- 
derson, instead  of  urging,  as  consistency  might  seem  to  require,  that  the 
language  of  this  passage,  like  that  of  chap.  Ix.,  "must  be  literally  ex- 
plained," interprets  it  as  meaning  that  "  the  enemies  of  Israel  having  all 
been  swept  away  by  the  powerful  judgments  of  God,  the  most  pi-rfect 
tranquillity  shall  reign  throughout  the  land,  and  those  who  may  go  up  to 
worship  at  Jerusalem  shall  enjoy,  unmolested,  the  fruit  of  their  labour." 
Here  again  we  may  perceive,  although  unable  to  reduce  to  rule,  the  exer- 
cise of  a  large  discretion  in  determining  what  .shall  and  what  shall  not  bo 
strictly  understood.  The  literal  Jcrus;ilem,  with  its  temple  and  its  courts, 
and  literal  com  and  wine,  appears  to  be  intended  ;  but  for  aught  that  ap- 
pears, the  eating  and  drinking  in  the  courts  of  that  temple  is  a  mere  figure 
for  exemption  from  annoyance  and  loss,  while  pre.sent  there  for  worship, 

10.  I'ass,  pass  throiujh  the  (jaies,  clear  the  way  of  the  people,  raise  high, 
raise  high  the  highway,  free  (it)  from  shoves,  raise  a  lanncr  (or  a  signal) 
over  the  nations.  Vitringa  puts  these  words  into  the  mouth  of  his  prophetic 
chorus  ;  Maurer  thinks  they  may  be  uttered  ly  the  watchmen  of  ver.  G; 
but  most  interpreters  appear  to  be  contented  with  the  obvious  hypothesis, 
that  Isaiah  is  here  speaking  in  the  name  of  God.  As  to  the  object  of  ad- 
dress, Eichhorn  supposes  it  to  be  the  Jews  still  lingering  among  the  ruins 
of  the  Holy  City ;  Maurer,  the  remaining  population  of  that  city,  which  he 
seems  to  think  considerable ;  Gesenius,  the  exiled  Jews  in  Babylon  and 
other  lands  ;  Henderson,  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities  that  may  lie  in  the 
way  of  the  returning  Israelites."  The  readiness  with  which  these  inter- 
preters accommodate  the  terms  of  the  text  to  their  several  hypotheses,  may 
shew  how  little  ground  there  is  for  any  definite  conclusion,  and  thus  serve 
to  recommend  tlio  hypothesis  of  Hitzig,  that  the  order  is  supposed  to  be 
given  to  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  execute  it.  Another  subject  of  dispute  is 
the  direction  of  the  march  required.  According  to  liosenmiiller,  Maurer, 
and  Henderson,  "  pass  through  the  gates"  means  go  out  of  them  ;  according 
to  Gesenius  and  others,  go  into  them.  It  means  neither  one  nor  the  other, 
but  go  through  them,  leaving  the  direction  to  be  gathered  from  the  context, 
which,  combined  with  the  analogy  of  chap.  Ivii.  II,  makes  it  probable  that 
what  is  here  described  is  the  entrance  of  the  nations  into  Zion  or  the  church, 
an  event  so  frequently  and  fully  set  forth  in  the  preceding  chapters.  The 
use  of  the  term  C*By  iu  the  last  clause  is  so  favourable  to  this  exposition,  or 
at  least  so  adverse  to  the  supposition  that  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from 
Babylon  is  here  intended,  that  Gesenius,  in  order  to  evade  this  dilHcultv,  has 


A 


Ver.  ll.J  ISAIAH  LXIL  411 

recourse  to  an  expedient  which  ho  would  have  laughed  to  scorn  if  used  in 
vindication  of  the  truth  of  prophecy.     This  is  the  explanation  of  D^GJ?  as 
meaning  trihes,  or  more  specifically  those  of  Israel,  on  the  authority,  as  he 
alleges,  of  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  xxxiii.  3,  19.     Nothing   but  extreme  exegetical 
necessity  could  warrant  this  intcrijretation  of  the  word  here,  if  it  were  true 
that  Moses  so  employed  it.     But  this  very  fact  is  still  more  doubtful  than 
the  one  which  it  is  called  in  to  confinn,  or  rather  it  is  still  more  certain  that 
D'?3y  in  Deuteronomy  denotes  the  Gentiles  than  it  is  in  this  case.     On  the 
other  hand,  the  singular  form  DP  is  used  repeatedly  m  these  very  prophecies 
to  signify  the  Gentiles  or  mankind  at  large.  (See  above,  chaps,  xhi.  5,  xlix.  8.) 
It  may  therefore  be  alleged,  in   opposition  to  the  views  which  have  been 
quoted,  with  as  much  plausibility  at  least,  that  this  is  not  a  prediction  of 
the  former  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  or  of  their  future  restora- 
tion from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  but  of  the  increase  of  the  church  or  chosen 
people  by  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles.     The  gates  are  then  the  gates  of 
the  ideal  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  the   passage   is  an   inward,  not  an  outward 
passage,  and  the  exhortation  of  the  text  is  one  to  all  concerned,  or  all  who 
have  the  opportunity  to  take  away  obstructions  and  facilitate  their  entrance. 
The  argument  in  favour  of  the  reference  to  Babylon,  derived  from  the 
analogy  of  chap.  Ivii.  19,  lies  equally  against  the  hypothesis  of  Henderson, 
who  cannot  consistently  repel  it,  as  we  do,  by  appealing  to  our  uniform 
assertion  that  the  Babyionii^h  exile  is  referred  to  only  as  a  signal  example 
of  deliverance.     What  is  said  in  one  place,  therefore,  with  acknowledged 
reference  to  Babylon  proves  nothing  where  the  same  generic  terms  are  used 
without  any  trace  of  local  allusion.     The  verb  'h\>^,  which  is  ambiguous 
(compare  chap.  v.  2,  and  2  Sam.  xvi.  6),  is  here  determined  by  the  addition 
of  the  phrase  !??P,  in  which  the  noun  is  used  as  a  collective.     In  the  last 
clause,  some  explain  ^V  with  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  as  simply  mean- 
ing to,  others  with  J.  D.  Michaelis/o/-.     Knobel  not  only  makes  it  perfectly 
synonymous  with    aNI,  but  then  notes  this  imaginary  fact  as  one  proof  of 
a  later  age.     The   most  exact  and  at  the  same  time  most  poetical  idea  is 
Luther's,  "  raise   the   banner  high   above  the   nations ;"  to  which  Hitzig 
theoretically  acquiesces,  but  translates  tbe  preposition /or,  like  others. 

11.  Behold,  Jehovah  has  canned  it  to  he  heard  to  the  end  of  the  earth,  Saij 
ye  to  the  daughter  of  Zion,  behold,  thy  salvation  cometh,  Ichold,  his  reivard  is 
with  liiin  and  hin  hire  hefore  him.  There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  connection 
of  the  clauses.  It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  verse  contnins  the  words 
uttered  by  Jehovah  to  the  end  of  the  earth,  and  if  so,  whether  these  con- 
tinue to  the  end  of  the  verse,  or  only  to  the  third  behold.  Hitzig  supposes 
J?*ptpn  to  be  absolutely  used,  and  to  denote  that  God  has  made  a  proclama- 
tion, but  without  saying  what ;  after  which  the  Prophet  goes  on  to  address 
the  messengers  mentioned  in  chap.  xl.  9,  and  lii.  7.  But  as  the  verb 
y^'^n  seems  to  require  an  object  after  it,  and  as  the  words  immediately 
succeeding  are  precisely  such  as  might  thus  be  uttered,  it  is  certainly  most 
natural  to  understand  what  follows  as  the  words  or  substance  of  the  procla- 
mation. It  has  also  been  made  a  question  whether  the  pronoun  his  refers 
to  Jehovah  or  to  the  nearest  antecedent,  salvation  ;  and  if  the  latter,  whether 
that  word  is  to  be  translated  savioiir,  as  it  is  by  Lowth  and  in  the  ancient 
versions.  This  last  is  a  question  of  mere  form,  and  the  other  of  but  little 
exegetical  importance,  since  the  saviour  or  salvation  meant  is  clearly  re- 
presented elsewhere  as  identical  with  God  himself.  The  last  clause  is  a 
repetition  of  chap.  xl.  10,  and  if  ever  the  identity  of  thought,  expression, 


412  ISAJAII  LXll.  [Vkb.  11. 

and  connection,  served  to  indicate  identity  of  subject,  it  is  so  in  this  case. 
The  reader  therefore  may  imaj^ino  the  inducement  which  could  lead  even 
Henderson  to  speak  of  the  two  places  as  "strictly  parallel  in  language, 
though  the  advents  in  the  two  passages  are  ditlerent."  If  this  be  so,  then 
nothing  can  ever  be  inferred  from  similarity  of  language,  and  an  unlimited 
discretion  is  allowed  to  the  interpreter  to  parry  all  attacks  upon  his  theory 
by  stoutly  maintaining  a  diversity  of  subject  in  the  very  places  whero  the 
opposite  appears  to  be  most  manifest.  Another  arbitrar}'  statement  rendered 
ni'cc'ssar}'  in  a  dozen  lines  by  the  determination  to  apply  the  passage  to 
the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  is  that  "  the  daughter  of 
Ziou  means  here  the  rightful  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  scattered  over  the 
face  of  the  earth,"  a  sense  which  even  this  interpreter  attaches  to  the  words 
in  this  place  only,  out  of  the  many  in  which  Isaiah  uses  them.  But  while 
these  violent  expedients  are  required  to  bring  the  passige  even  into  seeming 
application  to  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews,  it  is,  if  possible,  still  more 
inapplicable  to  their  former  restoration  from  the  liabylonish  exile.  In  tlie 
first  place,  why  should  the  ends  of  the  earth  be  summoned  to  announce 
this  event  to  Zion  ?  Hitzig  replies,  as  we  have  seen  already,  that  the  two 
clauses  are  entirely  unconnected  ;  Kuobel  more  boldly  explains  end  of  the 
earth  to  mean  "  the  end  of  the  oriental  world,  whose  west  end  touched  the 
Mediterranean  sea,  t.  c.  Palestine  !"  Whether  a  theory  requiring  such 
contrivances  can  well  be  sound,  is  left  to  the  decision  of  the  reader.  But 
another  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  interpretation  is  presented  by  the  last 
clause.  Even  supposing  that  the  old  opinion  as  to  this  clause  is  the  true 
one,  and  that  his  leuard  means  that  which  he  bestows,  in  what  sense  can 
the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  be  represented  as  the  coming  of 
salvation  (or  a  saviour)  to  the  daughter  of  Zion,  bringing  a  reward  '?  The 
daughter  of  Zion  is  throughout  these  prophecies  the  sull'ernig  person  and  the 
object  of  encouraging  address.  Even  where  it  primarily  means  the  city,  it 
is  only  as  the  centre,  representative,  and  symbol  of  the  Church  or  chosen 
people.  How  then  could  the  saviour  be  described  as  coming  to  his  people, 
bringing  themselves  with  him  as  a  recompence  for  what  they  had  endured. 
But  if,  for  reasons  given  in  expounding  ch;ip.  xl.  10,  we  understand  his 
rnrord  as  meaning  that  which  he  receives,  what  constiUitcs  this  recompense 
in  the  case  supposed  '?  The  image  then  presented  is  that  of  Jehovah  com- 
ing back  to  his  people,  and  bringing  his  people  with  him  as  his  recompense. 
The  incongruity  of  this- verse  with  the  Jiabylonian  theory  was  either  over- 
looked by  its  ablest  modern  champions,  or  occasioned  such  laconic  com- 
ments as  that  of  Koscnmiiller,  who  contents  himself  with  saying  that  the 
last  clause  has  already  been  explained  in  the  note  upon  chap.  xl.  10  ; 
while  Gesenius  still  more  briefly  says,  '*  dieselben  Worto  xl.  10  ;'"  and 
Maurer,  "  eadem  verba  legimus  xl.  10."  This  is  the  entire  exposition  of 
the  whole  verse  by  these  three  distinguished  writers,  while  those  of  later 
date,  who  have  been  less  reserved,  have  found  themselves  driven  to  the 
forced  constructions  which  have  been  already  mentioned.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  plain  sense  of  the  words,  the  context  liere,  and  the  analogy  of 
chap.  xl.  10,  are  all  completely  satisfied  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  Messiah 
(or  Jehovah)  is  here  described  as  coming  to  his  people,  bringing  with  him  a 
vast  multitude  of  strangers,  or  new  converts,  the  reward  of  his  own  labours, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  occasion  of  a  vast  enlargement  to  his  church. 
At  the  same  time,  let  it  be  observed  that  this  liypothesis  is  not  one  framed 
for  the  occasion,  without  reference  ;  or  even  in  opposition  to  the  previous 
explanation  of  passages  in  every  point  resembling  this,  but  one  suggested  at 


Ver.  l.J  ISAIAH  LXIII.  413 

the  outset  of  the  book,  and  found  upon  comparison,  at  every  stop  of  the 
interpretation,  to  be  more  satisfactory  than  any  other. 

12.  And  the;/ shall  call  them  the.  Holy  People,  the  redeemed  of  Jehovah, 
and  thou  nhalt  he  called  Dernshah  {sought  for),  Ir-lo-neezahah  {City  not  for- 
saken'). The  first  verb  is  indefinite,  they  {%.  e.  men)  shall  call ;  herjoe  the 
parallel  expression  has  the  passive  form.  On  the  construction  and  the 
idiomatic  use  of  call,  see  vol.  i,  p.  92.  The  distinction  here  so  clearly 
made  by  the  use  of  the  second  and  third  persons,  is  supposed  by  the  modern 
Germans  to  be  that  betv.een  the  city  and  her  returning  citizens  ;  but  this 
as  we  have  seen  repeatedly  before,  involves  a  constant  vacillation  between 
different  senses  of  Jerusalem  and  Zion  in  the  foregoing  context.  The  only 
supposition  which  can  be  consistently  maintained,  is  that  it  always  means 
the  city,  but  the  city  considered  merely  as  a  representative  or  sign  of  the 
whole  system  and  economy  of  Mhich  it  was  the  visible  centre.  The  true 
distinction  is  between  the  church  or  chosen  people  as  it  is,  and  the  vast 
accessions  yet  to  be  received  from  the  world  around  it.  Even  the  latter 
shall  be  honoured  with  the  name  of  Holy  People,  while  the  church  itself, 
becoming  co-extensive  with  the  world,  shall  cease  to  be  an  object  of  con- 
tempt or  disregard  to  God  or  man.  The  sense  of  sought  for  seems  to  be 
determined  by  the  parallel  description  in  Jer.  xxx.  14,  as  expressini^  the 
opposite  of  the  complaint  in  chap.  xlix.  14. — According  to  Henderson"^  the 
meaning  of  the  verse  is  that  "  the  Jews  shall  now,"  i.e.  after  their  restora- 
tion to  their  own  land,  "  be  a  holy  people,  redeemed  from  all  iniquity,  and 
thronging  their  ancient  capital  for  religious  purposes."  The  only  prospect 
opened  to  the  Gentiles  in  the  whole  prediction,  thus  expounded,"^  is  that  of 
becoming  ploughmen,  shepherds,  and  purveyors  to  the  favoured  nation ! 


CHAPTER   LXIII. 

Thk  influx  of  the  Gentiles  into  Zion  having  been  described  in  the  pre- 
ceding verses,  the  destruction  of  her  enemies  is  now  sublimely  represented 
as  a  sanguinary  triumph  of  Jehovah  or  the  Messiah,  vers.  1-G.  The  Pro- 
phet then  supposes  the  catastrophe  already  past,  and  takes  a  retrospective 
view  of  God's  compassion  towards  his  people,  and  of  their  unfaithfulness 
during  the  old  economy,  vers.  7-1-1.  He  then  assumes  the  tone  of  earnest 
supplication,  such  as  might  have  been  oflered  by  the  beheving  Jews  when 
all  seemed  lost  in  the  destruction  of  their  commonwealth  and  temple  vers 
15-10. 

1.  1 1 'ho  {is)  this  coming  from  Edom,  bright  {as  to  his)  garments  from 
Bozrah,  this  one  adorned  in  his  apparel,  bending  in  the  abundance  of  his 
strength'^  I,  speaking  in  righteousness,  mighty  to  save.  The  hypothesis 
that  this  is  a  detached  prophecy,  unconnected  with  what  goes  before  or 
follows,  is  now  commonly  alDandoned  as  a  mere  evasion  of  the  dilhcultv. 
Hitzig  indeed  adheres  to  it  in  order  to  sustain  his  theory  as  to  the  "radual 
composition  of  the  book.  The  dramatic  form  of  the  description  is"reco"- 
nised  by  modern  writers,  without  the  awkward  supposition  of  a  chorus 
adopted  by  Vitringa  and  Lowth.  It  is  not  necessary  even  to  introduce  the 
people  as  a  party  to  the  dialogue.  The  questions"  may  be  naturally  put 
into  the  mouth  of  the  Prophet  himself.  Interpreters  are  much  divided  as 
to  the  Edom  of  this  passage.  That  it  is  not  merely  a  play  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  the  name  (viz.  red),  is  clear  from  the  mention  of  the  chief  town  " 
Bozrah.      The  reference  to  Rome,   whether  the  Pioman  Empire  or  the 


414  ISAIAH  LXIIL  [Vkr.  2,  3. 

Romish  Church,  is  purely  fanciful.     J.  D.  Michaelis  consistently  applies 
the  passage,  like  the  foregoing  context,  to  a  future  event ;  but  Henderson 
unexpectedly  pronounces  it  unjustitiable  "  to  apply  it  to  any  future  judg- 
ments to  be  indicted  on  the  country  formerly  occupied  by  the  Edomites." 
His  own  opinion  is  that  "  the  object  of  the  Prophet  is  to  deduce  an  argu- 
ment from  God's  dealings  with  liis  ancient  people  in  favour  of  his  graciously 
regarding  them  in  their  then  distantly  future  dispersion."     He  does  not 
explain  why  this  is  any  less  "  unjustifiable"  than  the  reference  of  the  pas- 
sage to  a  "distantly  future"  event.     While  J,  D.  Michaelis  thus  makes 
both  the  threatening  and  the  promise  alike  future,  and  Henderson  makes 
one  distantly  future,  and  the  other  distantly  past,  Knobel  makes  both  past, 
and  supposes  Jehovah  to  be  here  described  merely  as  coming  through  the 
land  ol'  Edom  from  the  slaughter  of  the  nations  confederate  with  Croesus, 
who  had  just  been  overthrown  by  Cyrus  in  a  battle  near  Sardis.     With 
these  exceptions,  most  interpreters,  even  of  the  modern  German  school, 
suppose  Edom  to  be  here,  as  in  chap,  xxxiv.,  the  representative  of  Israel's 
most  inveterate  enemies.     For  this  use  of  the  name,  see  under  xxxiv.  5. 
The  connection  with  what  goes  before,  as  Rosenmiiller  states  it,  is  that 
the  restored  Jews  might  apprehend  the  enmity  of  certain  neighbouring 
nations,  who  had  rejoiced  in  their  calamity ;  and  that  the  prophecy  be- 
fore us  was  intended  to  allay  this  apprehension.      pOH  strictly  means 
fermented,  then  acetous,  sharp,  but  is  here  applied  to  vivid  colour,  like  the 
Greek  &^u  ypu/Ma.    inn  properly  means  swollen,  inflated,  but  is  hero  meta- 
phorically used  in  the  sense  of  adorned,  or,  as  Vitringa  thinks,   terrible, 
inspiring  awe.     For  the  sense  of  the  word  nj/V,  see  above,  on  chap.  li.  14. 
Vitringa  understands  it  to  mean  here  the  restless  motion  of  one  not  yet 
recovered  from  the  excitement  of  a  conflict ;  Gescnius,  the  tossing  or  throw- 
ing back  of  the  head  as  a  gesture  indicative  of  pride  ;  Hitzig,  the  leaning  of 
the  head  to  one  side  with  a  similar  effect.     The  Vulgate  version  {rjra'licns) 
conveys  too  little.     Spcakhif/  in  rif/hlrousncss  is  understood  by  most  of  the 
modern  writers  in  the  sense  of  speaking  about  it  or  concerning  it,  in  v.hich 
case  righteousness  must  have  the  sense  of  deliverance,  or  at  least  be  re- 
garded as  its  cause.     It  is  much  more  natural,  however,  to  explain  the 
phrase  as  meaning,  I  that  speak  in  tnith,  I  who  promise  and  am  able  to 
perform. — The  terms  of  this   description  are  applied  in  Rev.  xix.  13,  to 
the  victorious  Word  of  God,  a  name  which  has  apparently  some  reference 

to  13^'?. 

2.  ll'/iv  (t-s"  there)  redness  to  thy  raiment,  and  [uhj/  are)  thf  (garments 
like  {those  of)  one  treadinrj  in  a  irine-press  1  The  adjective  DIN  is  hero 
used  substantively,  just  as  we  speak  of  a  deep  red  in  English.  Or  the 
word  here  employed  may  be  explained  as  the  infinitive  of  D^^5  to  bo  red. 
There  is  no  need,  in  any  case,  of  making  the  "?  pleonastic  or  a  sign  of  the 
nominative  case,  with  llosenmiillcr  and  some  older  writers,  or  of  reading 
lljna'PD  with  Lowth.  Twenty-one  manuscripts  and  one  edition  gave  the 
noun  a  plural  form,  but  of  course  without  effect  upon  the  meaning.  The 
allusion  is  of  course  to  the  natural  red  wine  of  the  East,  that  of  some  vine- 
vards  on  Mount  Lebanon,  according  to  J.  D.  Michaelis,  being  almost  black. 
The  ri3  is  the  wine-press  properly  so  called,  as  distinguished  from  the  ^P^. 
or  reservoir.  It  is  a  slight  but  effective  stroke  in  this  fine  picture,  that  the 
first  verse  seems  to  speak  of  the  stranger  as  still  at  a  distance,  whereas  in 
the  second  he  has  come  so  near  as  to  bo  addressed  directly. 

3.  The  press  I  have  trodden  b)/  m;/nel/,  and  of  the  nations  there  tras  not  a 
man  with  me ;  and  I  will  tread  them  in  my  anger  and  trampl-e  them  in  my 


Vkr.  4.]  ISAIAH  LXIII.  415 

fury,  and  their  juice  shall  spirt  upon  my  garments,  and  all  my  vesture  I 
have  stained.  Tlie  word  here  used  for  press  is  different  from  that  in  the 
foregoing  verse,  and  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Haggai  ii.  IG.  According  to 
its  seeming  derivation,  it  denotes  the  place  where  grapes  are  crushed  or 
broken,  as  03  does  the  place  where  they  are  pressed  or  trodden.  The  com- 
parison suggested  in  the  question  (ver.  2)  is  here  caxried  out  in  detail. 
Being  asked  why  he  looks  like  the  treader  of  a  wine-press,  he  replies  that 
he  has  been  treading  one,  and  that  alone,  which  llosenmiiller  understands 
to  mean  without  the  aid  of  labourers  or  servants.  The  meaning  of  the  .  ^ure 
is  then  expressed  in  literal  terms.  "  Of  the  nations  there  was  not  a  man  with 
me."  This  expression  and  the  otherwise  inexplicable  alternation  of  the 
tenses  make  it  probable  that  two  distinct  treadings  are  here  mentioned,  one 
in  which  he  might  have  expected  aid  from  the  nations,  aud  another  in  which 
the  nations  should  themselves  be  trodden  down  as  a  punishment  of  this 
neglect.  Or  the  future  may  denote  merely  a  relative  futurity,  i.e.  in  refer- 
ence to  the  act  first  mentioned.  The  more  general  opinion  is,  however, 
that  but  one  act  of  treading  is  here  mentioned,  and  that  the  nations  are 
themselves  represented  as  the  grapes.  In  order  to  make  this  appear  more 
natural,  Jarchi  and  TremcUius  explain  with  me  as  meaning  against  me,  or 
to  contend  with  me,  which  is  not  justified  by  usage.  The  most  satisfactory 
solution  seems  to  be  that  these  words  are  added  to  convey  the  idea  that  all 
the  nations  were  on  the  adverse  side,  none  on  that  of  the  conqueror.  The 
sense  will  then  be  not  that  they  refused  to  join  in  trampling  others,  but 
simply  that  they  were  among  the  trampled.  As  if  he  had  said,  I  trod  the 
press  alone,  and  all  the  nations,  without  exception,  were  trodden  in  it.  By 
all  the  nations  we  are  of  course  to  understand  all  but  God's  people.  The 
principle  of  this  limitation  is  recognised  by  Knobel,  though  he  makes  an 
absurd  application  of  it  by  supposing  the  exception  to  be  Cyrus  and  the 
Persians,  who  derived  no  aid  from  other  nations  in  the  overthrow  of  Croesus. 
Henderson  understands  it  as  impl3'ing  that  the  punishment  here  mentioned 
was  inflicted  upon  Edom  without  the  intervening  aid  of  any  foreign  power, 
which  he  thinks  was  verified  in  their  subjection  by  a  native  Jewish  con- 
queror, Hyrcauus.  The  meaning  given  to  nV3  is  justified  by  the  use  of  the 
verb  in  Ai-abic  as  meaning  to  sprinkle.  *ri?S3X  is  a  mixed  form,  considered 
by  the  modern  Germans  as  a  proof  of  later  date  ;  but  such  anomalies  are 
usually  introduced  by  slow  degrees,  and  may  for  the  most  part  be  traced 
back  to  certain  singularities  of  diction  in  the  older  books.  The  treading  of 
the  wine-press  alone  is  an  expression  often  applied  in  sermons  and  in  reli- 
gious books  aud  conversation  to  our  Saviour's  sufferings.  This  application 
is  described  as  customary  in  his  own  time  by  Vitringa,  who  considers  it  as 
having  led  to  the  forced  exposition  of  the  whole  passage  by  the  Fathers  and 
Cocceius  as  a  description  of  Christ's  passion.  While  the  impossibility  of 
such  a  sense  in  the  original  passage  cannot  be  too  strongly  stated,  there  is 
no  need  of  denying  that  the  figure  may  be  happily  accommodated  in  the 
way  suggested,  as  many  expressions  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be  applied 
to  different  objects  with  good  efl'ect,  provided  we  are  careful  to  avoid  con- 
founding such  accommodations  with  the  strict  and  primary  import  of  the 
passage. 

4.  For  the  day  of  vengeance  (is)  in  my  heart,  and  tJie  year  of  my  redeemed 
is  come.  For  the  sense  of  dag  and  gear  in  this  connection,  see  above,  on 
chap.  Ixi.  2.  In  mg  heart,  i.  e.  my  mind  or  purpose.  Some  writers  need- 
lessly and  arbitrarily  change  my  redeemed  to  mg  redemption.  It  is  not  even 
necessary  to  explain  the  participle  in  a  future  sense  {to  be  redeemed),  since 


416  ISAIAH  LXIII.  i  Veb.  5-7. 

their  redemption  was  as  firmlv  settled  in  the  divine  purjiose  as  the  day  of 
vengeance. 

5.  And  I  look,  and  there  is  none  helping;  and  I  stand  aghast,  and  t/iere  is 
none  sustain ing ;  and  vit/  own  arm  saves  for  nic,  and  viy  Jury  it  sustains  me. 
These  expressions  have  ahcady  been  exphiined  in  cliap.  lix.  10.  Hilzij^'s 
idea  tliat  this  is  the  orit^iiial,  and  that  a  quotation  from  memorv.  and  his 
inference  that  this  is  the  older  composition,  are  alike  unfounded.  With 
equal,  if  not  greater  plausibility,  it  might  be  argued  from  the  greater  regu- 
larity and  finish  of  the  sentence  liere,  that  it  is  an  improvement  on  the 
other.  FuiT  here  takes  the  place  of  righteousness  in  chap.  hx.  10,  not  as 
a  synonyme  but  as  an  equivalent.  God's  wrath  is  but  the  executioner  and 
agent  of  his  justice.  Upon  either  he  might  therefore  be  described  as  ex- 
clusively relying.  The  present  form  is  used  in  the  translation,  on  account 
of  the  uncertainty  in  \\h;ch  the  use  of  the  tenses  is  involved,  and  which 
may  arise  in  part  from  an  intentional  confusion  of  the  past  and  future  in 
the  mind  of  one  who  had  begun  a  great  work,  and  was  yet  to  finish  it. 

6.  And  I  tread  the  nations  in  my  anger,  and  I  malie  them  drunk  in  my 
wrath,  and  I  bring  down  to  the  earth  their  juice.  The  use  of  the  word  tread 
leads  to  the  resumption  of  the  figure  of  a  wine-press,  which  is  employed 
besides  this  passage  in  Lam.  i.  15,  Joel  iv.  13,  Rev.  xiv.  19,  20.  For 
D.13L"N  I  make  them  drunk,  most  of  the  modern  writers  since  Cappellus 
read  D!??t?'t<  I  crush  them  ;  which  is  not  only  confirmed  by  many  manu- 
scripts and  some  editions,  as  well  as  by  the  Targum,  but  is  recommended  by 
its  suiting  the  connection  betler.  This  very  circumstance,  however,  throws 
suspicion  on  the  emendation,  as  a  device  to  get  rid  of  a  difliculty.  In  order 
to  connect  the  common  reading  with  the  context,  we  have  only  to  assume  a 
mixture  of  metaphors,  such  as  we  continually  meet  with  in  Isaiah.  There 
is  no  need  of  going  with  Vitringa  to  the  extravagant  and  revolting  length  of 
supposing  that  the  nations  are  desciibed  as  rolling  in  their  own  blood  till  it 
gets  into  their  mouths  and  down  their  throats.  There  is  simply  a  sudden 
change  of  figure,  which  is  not  only  common,  but  characteristic  of  Isaiah, 
notwithstanding  Geffcnins's  paradoxical  denial. 

7.  2'he  mercies  of  Jehovah  I  icill  cause  to  be  remcmbcnd,  the  praises  of 
Jehovah  according  to  all  that  Jehovah  hath  done  for  us,  and  the  great  goodness 
to  the  house  of  Israel  which  he  hath  done  for  them,  according  to  his  compas- 
sions and  according  to  the  multitude  nf  his  mercies.  The  sudden  change  of 
tone  in  this  verse  has  of  course  led  to  many  suppositions  as  to  its  connec- 
tion with  what  goes  before  and  follows.  The  easiest  expedient  is  the  one 
which  Lowth  adopts,  by  denying  all  immediate  connection  with  what  goes 
before  ;  but  it  is  also  the  least  satisfactory.  Ewald  begins  the  closing  sec- 
tion of  the  book  bore,  and  thinks  it  quite  iiidubital  le  that  events  had  made 
considerable  j)rogress  between  the  dates  of  the  sixth  and  seventh  verses. 
The  prevalent  opinion  among  Christian  interjtretors  is  that  we  have  liere 
the  beginning  of  a  prophecy  relating  to  the  future  restoration  of  Israel. 
Even  \'itringa,  who  shews  little  partiality  to  this  hypothesis  in  the  fore- 
going chapters,  acquiesces  in  it  here.  His  arguments,  however,  only  go  to 
shew  that  this  interpretation  is  better  than  the  one  which  applies  the  pas- 
sage to  the  Babylonish  exile.  Lowth  simply  says  that  it  is  so,  without 
assigning  any  reason.  On  the  general  principle  assumed  throughout  our 
exposition  as  to  the  design  and  subject  of  these  prr>])hecies,  a  more  general 
ajiplication  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  and  the  passage  n:ust  be  under- 
stood as  relating  to  the  favours  ex])erienced  ai  d  tlie  sins  con  mittf  d  by  the 
chosen  people  throughout  the  period  of  the  old  dispeusatioi .     There  is  no 


Ver.  8.]  ISAIAH  LXIIL  417 

need  of  assuming  any  speaker  but  tlie  Prophet  himself.  The  plural  form, 
mercies,  may  be  intended  to  denote  abundance.  /  zmll  cause  to  be  remem- 
lereJ,  may  have  reference  to  men  ;  in  which  case  the  phrase  is  equivalent 
to  celebrate,  record,  or  praise.  But  as  these  acknowledgments  are  merely 
preparatory  to  a  prayer  that  God  would  renew  his  ancient  favours  to  them, 
it  is  better  to  understand  it  as  meaning,  I  will  cause  God  himself  to  remem- 
ber, or  remind  him,  in  which  application  the  verb  is  often  used,  e.g.  in  the 
titles  of  Ps.  xxxviii.  and  Ixx.  (See  Hengstenberg  on  the  Psalms,  vol.  ii.  p. 
203).  There  is  no  need  of  giving  to  ril^nn  the  factitious  sense  of  praise- 
worth}'  acts  or  virtues,  as  the  Septuagint  does  by  its  uPiTug.  The  proper 
sense  oi  praises  is  appropriate  and  sufficient.  For  the  sense  of  ^J??  and  /PI, 
see  above  on  chap.  lix.  18.  We  have  here  another  illustration  of  the  ease  with 
which  the  parallelism  may  be  urged  on  different  sides  of  the  same  question. 
It  had  been  made  a  question  whether  2)D  31  is  governed  by  "l''3TN  or  by 
?y3.  The  former  is  niaiutained  by  Maurer,  the  latter  by  Hitzig,  on  pre- 
cisely the  same  gi'ound  :  ita  postulante  iiarallelismo,  says  the  one  ;  diess 
verlamit  iler  Parallclismus,  sa3'S  the  other. 

8.  And  he  said,  Only  they  are  my  people,  {»ty)  children  shall  not  lie  (or 
deceive'),  and  he  became  a  saviour  for  them.  To  the  general  acknowledg- 
ment of  God's  goodness  to  his  people,  there  is  now  added  a  specification  of 
his  favours,  beginning  with  the  great  distinguishing  favour  by  which  they 
became  what  they  were.  This  verse  is  commonly  explained  as  an  expres- 
sion of  unfounded  confidence  and  hope  on  God's  part,  surely  they  are  my 
people,  children  that  xvill  not  lie.  This  must  then  be  accounted  for  as 
anlhropopathy ;  but  although  the  occurrence  of  this  figure  in  the  Scriptures 
is  indisputable,  it  is  comparatively  rare,  and  not  to  be  assumed  without 
necessity.  Besides,  the  explanation  just  referred  to  rests  aliuost  entirely 
on  the  sense  attached  to  "^i:?  as  a  mere  particle  of  asseveration.  Now,  in 
every  other  case  where  Isaiah  uses  it,  the  restrictive  sense  of  only  is  not 
admissible  merely,  but  necessary  to  the  full  force  of  the  sentence.  It  is 
surely  not  the  true  mode  of  interpretation,  to  assume  a  doubtful  definition 
for  the  sake  of  obtaining  an  unsatisfactory  and  oflensive  sense.  Another 
advantage  of  the  strict  translation  is,  that  it  makes  the  Prophet  go  back  to 
the  beginning  of  their  course,  and  instead  of  setting  out  from  the  hopes 
which  God  expressed  after  the  choice  of  Israel,  record  the  choice  itself. 
Thus  understood,  the  first  clause  is  a  solemn  declaration  of  his  having 
chosen  Israel,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  nations.  Only  they  (and  no 
others)  are  my  jieople.  The  objection  which  may  seem  to  arise  from  the 
collocation  of  "^^^  with  H^n  rather  than  ''^V,  applies  only  to  the  occidental 
idioui  ;  since  in  Hebrew  a  quahfying  particle  is  often  attached  to  the  first 
word  of  the  clause,  even  when  it  is  more  closely  related  to  some  other. 
]'>iit  even  if  the  force  of  this  objection  were  allowed,  it  could  not  prove  that 
■^J^  must  here  be  taken  in  a  sense  which  does  not  properly  belong  to  it,  but 
only  that  it  must  be  made  to  qualify  ''^V.  The  sense  will  then  be,  they  are 
only  my  people,  i.e.  nothing  else;  which,  although  less  satisfactory  than 
the  other  sense,  is  still  far  better  than  the  one  which  makes  Jehovah  here 
express  a  groundless  expectation. — The  second  clause  may  possibly  mean 
[t.'ieir)  sons  shall  not  deal  falsely,  i.  e.  degenerate  from  their  father's  faith. 
In  either  case,  the  future  is  the  future  of  command,  as  in  the  decalogue, 
not  that  of  mere  prediction.  Gesenius  explains  npt^''  as  an  elliptical  ex- 
pression, to  be  supplied  by  the  analogy  of  Ps.  xliv.  18,  and  Ixxxix.  34  ; 
but  it  is  simpler  to  understand  it  absolutely,  as  in  1  Sam.  xv.  29. — The 

VOL.  II.  D  d 


418  ISAIAH  LXIIL  [Ver.  9. 

English  Version,  so  he  was  their  saviour,  is  a  needless  departure  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  original,  and  aggravates  the  misinterpretation  of  the  first 
clause,  hy  suggesting  that  he  was  their  saviour  because  he  believed  they 
would  be  faithful.  The  verse  in  Hebrew  simply  states  two  facts,  without 
intimating  any  causal  relation  between  them.  He  chose  them  and  he  saved 
them. 

9.  In  all  their  enmity  he  teas  not  an  enemy,  and  the  auyel  of  his  face  (or 
presence)  saved  them,  in  his  love  and  in  his  sparing  mercy  he  redeemed  them, 
and  lie  took  them  up  and  carried  them  all  the  days  of  old.  The  first  clause 
is  famous  as  the  subject  of  discordant  and  even  contradictory  interpreta- 
tions.   These  have  been  multiplied  by  the  existence  of  a  doubt  as  to  the  text. 

The  Masora  notes  this  as  one  of  fifteen  places  in  which  «?,  not,  is  written  by 

mistake  for  1^,  to  him  or  it.  Another  instance  of  the  same  alleged  error  in 
the  text  of  Isaiah  occurs  in  chap.  ix.  2.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  199.)  Rabbi 
Jonah,  according  to  Solomon  Ben  Meiek,  understands  the  amended  text  to 
mean  that  in  all  their  distress  they  still  had  a  rock  or  refuge,  making  "^V 
Bynonvmous  with  "i-IV,  which  is  wholly  nnsustained  by  usage.  A  far  better 
sense  is  that  of  Aben  Ezra,  that  in  all  their  distress  there  was  distress  to 
him,  or  as  the  English  Version  renders  it,  "  in  all  their  alWiction  he  was 
afflicted."  This  explanation,  with  the  text  on  which  it  is  founded,  and  which 
is  exhibited  by  a  number  of  manuscripts  and  editions,  is  approved  by  Luther, 
Vitringa,  Clericus,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel.  It 
is  favoured,  not  only  by  the  strong  and  afl'ecting  sense  which  it  yields,  but 
by  the  analog}'  of  Judges  x.  16,  xi.  7,  in  one  of  which  places  the  same 
phrase  is  used  to  denote  human  suflering,  and  in  the  other  God  is  repre- 
sented as  sympathising  with  it.  The  objections  to  it  are,  that  it  gratuitously 
renders  necessary  another  anthropopathic  explanation ;    that  the   natural 

collocation  of  the  words,  if  this  were  the  meaning,  would  be  v  "IV,  as  in 
2  Sam.  i.  20;  that  the  negative  is  expressed  by  all  the  ancient  versions; 
and  that  tlie  critical  presumption  is  in  fovonr  of  the  Kethib,  or  textual  read- 
ing, as  the  more  ancient,  which  the  Masorites  merely  corrected  in  the 
margin,  without  venturing  to  change  it,  and  which  ought  not  to  be  now 
abandoned,  if  a  coherent  sense  can  be  put  upon  it,  as  it  can  in  this  case. 
Jerome,  in  his  version,  makes  the  clause  assert  the  very  opposite  of  that 
sense  which  is  usually  put  upon  the  marginal  reading  or  Keri,  in  onini 
trihulnlinne  eorum  non  est  tribulaliis.  The  Septuagint  makes  it  contradict 
the  next  clause,  as  it  is  usually  understood,  by  rendering  it  ou  rrsid^-j;  cud's 
ayyO.o;  aXX'  aire;  "inuuiv  alrob:.  This  is  followed  by  Lowth  even  so  far 
as  to  connect  the  first  words  of  the  clause  with  the  preceding  vei-sc  :  and  he 
became  their  saviour  in  all  their  distress.  It  was  n<>t  an  envoy  nor  an  amjel 
of  his  presence  that  saved  them,  &c.  Not  to  mention  other  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  this  interpretation,  its  making  IV  svTionymous  with  l^V  is  wholly 
arbitrary'.  Another  forced  construction,  given  by  Cocceius,  and  approved 
by  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  and  almost  by  Gesenius,  explains  there  was  not  an 
adversary,  and  he  saved  them,  to  mean,  there  scarcely  was  or  no  sooner  was 
there  an  adversan,-,  when  or  than  he  saved  them.  The  only  example  of  this 
harsh  and  obscure  syntax  which  is  cited,  namely,  2  Kings  xx.  4,  is  nothing 
to  the  purpose,  because  there  it  is  expressly  said,  and  no  doubt  meant, 
that  Isaiah  had  not  gone  out  into  the  court ;  whereas  here  it  cannot  possibly 
be  meant  that  Israil  had  no  adversaries.  A  much  more  natural  construction 
is  the  one  proposed  by  Jerome  in  his  commentary.  "  in  all  their  affliction 
be  did  not  afllict  (them);"  which,  however,  is  scarcely  recoucileablo  with 


Ver.  9.j  ISAIAH  LXIII.  419 

history.  This  difficulty  is  avoided  by  Henderson's  modification  of  the  same 
construction,  in  all  their  affliction  lie  wan  not  an  adversary,  i.  e.  although  he 
afflicted  them,  he  did  not  hate  them.  This  agi-ees  well  with  what  im- 
mediately follows,  hut  is  still  liable  to  the  objection  that  it  takes  IV  and 
n^y  in  entirely  different  senses,  which  can  only  be  admissible  in  case  of 
necessity.  Others  accordingly  regard  them  as  s3Tionymous  expressions, 
and  in  order  to  remove  the  appearance  of  a  contradiction,  supply  some 
qualification  of  the  second  word.  Thus  Jarchi  understands  the  clause  to 
mean  that  in  all  their  affliction  there  was  no  such  affliction  as  their  sins 
had  merited.  Aurivillius  supposes  the  masculine  form  to  express  the  same 
thing  with  the  feminine  essentially,  but  in  a  higher  degree,  "  in  all  their 
affliction  there  was  no  extreme  or  fatal  affliction."  Gesenius  rejects  this 
explanation  of  the  forms  as  too  artificial,  but  adopts  a  similar  interpretation 
of  the  clause,  which  he  explains  to  mean  that  in  all  their  distress  there  was 
no  real  or  serious  distress,  none  that  deserved  the  name  ;  which  could 
hardly  be  alleged  with  truth.  It  is  also  hard  to  account  in  this  case  for 
the  use  of  the  different  forms  "IV  and  mv  to  express  the  same  idea,  after 
rejecting  Aurivilhus's  solution.  This  circumstance  appears  to  point  to  an 
interpretation  which  shall  give  the  words  the  same  sense,  yet  so  far  modified 
as  to  explain  the  difference  of  form.  Such  an  interpretation  is  the  one 
suggested  by  De  Wette's  version  of  the  clause,  which  takes  "^V  and  HIV 
as  correlative  derivatives  from  one  sense  of  the  same  root,  but  distinguished 
from  each  other  as  an  abstract  and  a  concrete,  enemy  and  enmity.  A  real 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  interpretation,  is  the  want  of  any  usage 
to  sustain  the  latter  definition,  which,  however,  is  so  easily  deducible 
from  the  primary  meaning,  and  so  clearh*  indicated  by  the  parallel 
expression,  that  it  may  perhaps  be  properly  assumed  in  a  case  where 
the  only  choice  is  one  of  difficulties.  Thus  understood,  the  clause 
simply  throws  the  blame  of  all  their  conflicts  with  Jehovah  on  them- 
selves :  ill  all  their  cumity  (to  him)  /c  ivas  not  an  enemy  (to  them). 
The  proof  of  this  assei'tion  is  that  he  saved  them,  not  fi'om  Eg^-jit  merely, 
but  from  all  then-  early  troubles,  with  particular  reference  perhaps  to  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  in  the  history  of  which  this  verb  very  frequently 
occurs.  (See  Judges  ii.  10,  18,  iii.  15,  vi.  14,  &c.)  This  salvation  is 
ascribed,  however,  not  directly  to  Jehovah,  but  to  the  angel  of  his  face  or 
presence.  Kimchi  explains  this  to  mean  the  agency  of  second  causes,  which 
he  sa_ys  are  called  in  Scripture  angels  or  messengers  of  God.  Abarbenel 
gives  it  a  personal  sense,  but  applies  it  to  the  angels  collectively.  Jarchi 
makes  it  not  only  a  personal  but  an  individual  description,  and  explains  it 
to  mean  Michael,  as  the  tutelary  angel  of  Israel  (Dan.  xii.  1).  Abcn  Ezra, 
with  sagacity  and  judgment  superior  to  all  his  brethren,  understands  it  of 
the  angel  whom  Jehovah  promised  to  send  with  Israel  (Exod.  xxiii.  20-23), 
and  whom  he  did  send  (Exod.  xiv.  19,  Num.  xx.  16),  and  who  is  iden- 
tified with  the  presence  of  Jehovah  (Exod.  xxxiii.  14,  15)  and  with 
Jehovah  himself  (Exod.  xxxiii.  12).  The  combination  of  these  passages 
determines  the  sense  of  the  angel  of  his  presence,  as  denoting  the  angel 
whose  presence  was  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  or  in  whom  Jehovah  was 
personally  present,  and  precludes  the  explanation  given  by  Clericus  and 
many  later  writers,  who  suppose  it  to  inean  merely  an  angel  who  habitually 
stands  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah  (1  Kings  xxii.  19),  just  as  human 
courtiers  or  officers  of  state  are  said  to  see  the  king's  face  (Jer.  Hi.  25.) 
Even  Hitzig  admits  the  identity  of  the  angel  of  Jehovah's  presence  with 
Jehovah  himself,  but  explains  it  away  by  making  angel  an  abstract  term. 


420  ISAIAIl  LXIII.  Ver.  K). 

not  denotinfT  in  any  cfisc  a  person,  Int  the  maiiifL-station  of  Jehovah's  pre- 
sence at  a  certain  time  and  place,  Hendewerk,  on  the  other  hand,  alleges 
that  the  angel  is  always  represented  as  a  personality  distinct  from  Jehovah 
himself.  By  hiending  these  concessions  from  two  writers  of  the  same 
great  school,  wo  ohtain  a  striking  testimony,  if  not  to  the  absolute  truth,  to 
the  scriptural  correctness  of  the  old  Christian  doctrine,  as  expounded  with 
consummate  force  and  clearness  by  Vitringa  in  his  comment  on  this  pas- 
sage, viz.  the  doctrine  that  the  Angel  of  God's  presence,  who  is  mentioned 
in  the  passages  already  cited,  and  from  time  to  time  in  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  (Gen.  xxviii.  18,  xxxi.  11,  xlviii.  10,  Exod.  iii.  2,  J()shua 
V.  14,  Judges  xiii.  0,  liosea  xii.  5,  Zech.  iii.  1,  Mai.  iii.  1,  Ps.  xxxiv.  8), 
was  that  divine  person  who  is  represented  in  the  New  as  the  brightness  of 
the  Father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person  (Heb.  i.  8),  the 
image  of  God  (2  Cor.  iv.  4,  Col.  i.  15),  in  whose  face  the  glory  of  God 
shines  (2  Cor.  iv.  G),  and  in  whom  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily  (Col.  ii.  9).  Lowth's  unfortunate  adoption  of  the  Septungint  ver- 
sion or  perversion  of  the  text,  led  him  to  argue  ingeniously,  but  most 
unfairly,  that  although  the  Angel  of  Jehovah's  presence  is  sometimes 
identified  with  Jehovah  himself,  yet  in  other  places  he  is  explicitly  distin- 
guished from  him,  and  unist  therefore  be  considered  as  a  creature  ;  so  that 
in  the  case  before  us,  which  is  one  of  those  last  mentioned,  the  honour  of 
Israel's  deliverance  is  denied  to  this  angel  and  exclusively  ascribed  to  God 
himself.  All  this  not  only  rests  upon  a  fanciful  and  false  translation,  but 
is  contradicted  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  Jews  and  infidels  as  well  as 
Christians,  that  the  salvation  of  God's  people  is  directly  ascribed  to  the 
Angel  of  Jehovah's  presence. — Vitringa  insists,  perhaps,  with  too  much 
pertinacity,  ujjon  applying  what  immediately  follows  to  the  Angel  and  not 
to  Jehovah  :  lirst,  because  the  question  is  in  fact  a  doubtl'ul  one,  and  both 
constnictions  are  grammatical  :  and  secondly,  because  it  is  a  question  of 
no  moment,  after  the  essential  identity  of  the  Angel  and  Jehovah  has  been 
ascertained  from  other  quarters. — The  Hebrew  '^7'rC>  ^o^i  ''^C>  to  spun', 
has  no  exact  equivalent  in  English,  and  can  only  be  expressed  by  a  peri- 
phrasis. The  same  atl'ections  towards  Israel  are  descrilu^d  to  Jehovah  in 
the  Pentateuch.  (Dent,  xxiii.  9-11,  Ps.  Ixxvii.  15.) — For  the  true  sense 
of  what  follows,  as  to  taking  up  and  carrying  them,  see  above,  on  chap, 
xlvi.  3. — o7)V,  which  Vitringa  regards  as  identical  with  the  Latin  olim,  is 
like  it  applied  as  well  to  the  past  as  to  the  future.  It  originally  signifies 
unknown  or  indefinite  duration,  and  in  such  a  case  as  this,  remote  anti- 
quity ;  the  whole  phrase  being  used  precisely  in  the  same  sense  as  by 
Amos  (ix.  11)  and  Micah  (vii.  14). — The  verb  redeem  is  not  only  one  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  these  j)rophecies  (chap,  xliii.  1,  xliv.  22,  28,  xlviii. 
20,  xlix.  7.  i^c),  but  is  expressly  applied  elsewhere  to  the  reiKinptitm  of 
Israel  from  Egypt  (Exod.  vi.  5,  Ps.  Ixxiv.  2,  Ixxvii.  IG),  and  is  therefore 
applicable  to  all  other  analogous  deliverances. 

10.  And  tliey  nhrlUd  anil  ijricvcd  his  Jloli/  Spirit  (or  Spirit  nf  holiness), 
and  he  tvas  turned  J  rvm  (hem  into  an  tini/iy,  he  himxtlffi>ti<jht  aijainal  them. 
The  pronoun  at  the  begiiming  is  emphatic  :  they  on  their  part,  as  opposed 
to  God's  forbearance  and  long-suflering.  There  seems  to  be  an  allusion  in 
this  clause  to  the  injunct'on  given  to  the  people  at  the  exodus,  in  reference 
to  the  Angel  who  whs  to  c<induct  them  :  ••"Beware  of  liim  and  obey  his  voice, 
provoke  him  not,  ft>r  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions,  for  my  name 
is  in  him  "  (Exod.  xxiii.  21 ).  From  this  analogA-  Vitringa  argues  that  iho 
verbc  before  us  has  specific   reference  to  the  disobedience  or  resistance 


Vkr.  11.]  ISAIAE  LXIII.  421 

oflercd  by  the  people  to  the  Angel  of  God's  presence.     As  the  next  clause 
may  have  reference  to  Jehovah,  it  cannot  be  demonstrated  from  it  that  the 
spirit  here  mentioned  is  a  personal  spirit,  and  not  a  mere  disposition  or 
artection.     But  the  former  supposition,  which  is  equallj'  consistent  with  the 
language  here  used,  in  itself  considered,  becomes  far  more  probable  when 
taken  in  connection  with  the  preceding  verse,  where  a  personal  angel  is 
joined   wath   Jehovah   precisely  as  the    Spirit    is  joined   with  him    here. 
Assuming  that  the  following  words  relate  to  this  Spirit,  he  is  then  described 
as  endued  with  personal  susceptibilities  and  performing  personal  acts,  and 
we  have  in  these  two  verses  a  distinct  enumeration  of  the  three  divine 
persons.     That  the  Spirit  of  this  verse,  hke  the  Angel  of  the  ninth,  is 
represented  as  divine,  is  evident  not  only  from  a  comparison  of  Ps.  Ixxviii. 
17,  40,  where  the  same  thing  is  said  of  God  himself,   but  also  from  the 
fact  that  those  interpreters  who  will  not  recognise  a  personal  spirit  in  this 
passage,  unanimously  understand  the  spirit  either  as  denoting  an  attribute 
of  God  or  God  himself,     Henderson  thinks  it  necessary  to  explain  away 
a  seeming  contradiction  between  this  verse  and  the  first  clause  of  ver.  9,  by 
making  "ly  a  stronger  expression  than  3''.l^<.     The  true  solution  is,  that  the 
passage  is  in  some  sort  historical,  and  shews  the  progress  of  the  alienation 
between  God  and  Israel.      Having  shewn  in  the  preceding  verse  that  it 
began  upon  the  part  of  Israel,   and  was  long  resisted  and  deferred  by 
Jehovah,  he  now  shews  how  at  length  his  patience  was  exhausted,  and  he 
really  became  what  he  was  not  before.     This  is  the  true  sense  of  the  verb 
■n?n.\  to  which  many  of  the  moderns  give  a  reflexive  form,  he  changed  him- 
self.    The  disputes  among  interpreters  whether  this  verse  has  reference  to 
the  conduct  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness,  or  under  the  judges,  or  before 
the  Babylonish  exile,  or  before  the  final  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  are  only 
useful  as  a  demonstration  that  the  passage  is  a  general  description,  which 
was  often  verified. — From   this  verse  Paul  has  borrowed   a   remarkable 
expression  in  Eph.  iv,  30.  (Compare  Mat.  xii.  31,  Acts  vii.  51,  Heb.  x.  29.) 
11.   And  he  rememhered  the  days  of  old,  Moses  {and)  his  people.      Where 
is  he  that  brought  them  tip  from  the  sea,  the  -shepherd  of  his  flock  ?      Where  is 
he  that  put  within  him  his  Holy  Spirit?     Grotius  and  others  make  Jehovah 
the  subject  of  the  first  verb,  and  suppose  him  to  be  here  described  as 
relenting.     This  construction  has  the  advantage  of  avoiding  an  abrupt 
change  of  person  without  any  intimation  in  the  text.     But  as  the  following 
can  be  naturally  understood  only  as  the  language  of  the  people,  especially 
when   compared  with  Jer.  ii.  G,  most  WTiters   are  agreed  in  referring  this 
clause  to  the  people  also.     C}Til  and  Jerome,  it  is  true,  combine  both  sup- 
positions, by  referring  he  rememhered  to  Jehovah,  and  explaining  what  fol- 
lows as  the  language  of  the  people.     But  a  transition  so  abrupt  is  not  to 
be  assumed  without  necessity.     The  Targum  gives  a  singular  turn  to  the 
sentence  by  supplying  lest  they  say  before  the  second  clause,  which  then 
becomes  the  language  of  the  enemies  of  Israel,  exulting  in  the  failure  of 
Jehovah's  promises.     This  explanation  may  appear  to  derive  some  support 
from  the  analogy  of  Deut.   xxxii.  17,  which  no  doubt  suggested  it ;  but  a 
fatal  objection  is  the  one  made  by  Yitringa,  that  the  essential  idea  is  one 
not  expressed  but  arbitrarih'  supplied.     Another  singular  interpretation  is 
the  one  contained  in  the  Dutch  Bible,  which  makes  God  the  subject  of  the 
first  verb,  but  includes  it  in  the  language  of  the  people,  complaining  that 
he  dealt  with  them  no  longer  as  he  once  did  :  Once  he  remembered  the 
days  of  old,  &c.,  but  now  where  is  he,  &c.     But  here  again,  the  words 
hut  now,  on  which  the  whole  depends,  must  be  supplied  without  authority. 


422  ISAIAH  LXIII.  [Veb.  11. 

The  modern  WTiters,  siuce  Vitringn,  are  agreed  that  the  first  claose  de- 
scribes the  repcutance  of  the  people,  aud  that  the  second  gives  their  verj- 
words,  contrasting  theii-  actual  condition  with  their  former  privileges  and 
enjoyments.  There  is  still  a  dillereuce  of  opinion,  however,  with  respect 
to  the  grammatical  construction  uf  the  first  clause.  Rosenmiiller  and 
most  of  the  later  writers  follow  Jarchi  in  making  isy  the  subject  of  the 
verb  ;  and  his  people  remembered  the  days  of  old,  kc.  As  such  a  colloca- 
tion fulls  in  with  the  German  idiom,  the  winters  in  that  language  have 
easily  been  led  to  regard  it  as  entirely  natural,  though  really  as  foreign  from 
Hebrew  as  from  English  usage.  The  solitarj-  case  which  Hitzig  cites 
(Ps.  xxxiv.  22)  would  prove  nothing  by  itself,  even  if  it  were  exactly  simi- 
lar and  unambiguous,  neither  of  which  is  really  the  case.  But  another 
difficulty  still  remains,  viz.,  that  of  construing  the  words  IJSy  nV"D,  which 
seemed  to  stand  detached  from  the  remainder  of  the  sent^3nce.  Lowih 
resorts  to  his  favourite  but  desperate  method  of  reading  l'^?y  his  servant, 
on  the  authority  of  the  Peshito  and  a  few  manuscripts.  G»senius,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  half  incUned  to  strike  out  'T^'O  as  a  mai-ginal  gloss  still 
wanting  in  the  Septuagint.  These  emendations,  even  if  they  rested  upon 
surer  grounds,  wouM  only  lessen,  not  remove,  the  difficulty  as  to  the  con- 
struction of  nC*D  or  isy  with  what  goes  before.  Gesenius  makes  (idtjs  of  old 
a  complex  noun  governing  Moses  :  the  ancient  days  of  Moses.  This  con- 
struction, harsh  aud  unusual  as  it  is,  has  been  adopted  by  the  later  German 
WTiters  except  Maurcr,  who,  after  denying  the  existence  of  the  difficulty, 
brings  out  as  if  it  were  a  new  discovery,  the  old  construction,  given  in  the 
English  Bible  and  maintained  at  length  by  Yitriuga,  which  nuikes  Moses 
and  his  prop} e  correlatives,  as  objects  of  the  verb  reniemhcred :  He  remem- 
bered the  ancient  days,  viz.  those  of  Moses  and  his  people.  So  Gesenius, 
in  the  not€s  to  tlic  second  edition  of  his  German  version,  calls  attention  to 
the  explanation  of  n^'O  as  a  noun  or  participle  meaning  the  deliverer  of  his 
people,  as  having  been  recently  propcjsed  by  Horst,  whereas  it  is  at  least 
as  old  as  Aben  Ezra,  who  recites  without  adopting  it. — Henderson  is  dis- 
posed to  omit  the  pronoun  in  o?^J2T\j  on  the  authority  of  two  old  manu- 
scripts, apparently  confirmed  by  that  of  two  old  versions,  or  to  gain  the 
same  end  by  regarding  the  construction  as  an  Aramaic  one,  in  which  the 
pronoun  is  prefixed  in  pleonastic  anticipation  of  the  noun  which  follows. 
In  either  case  the  HS  will  be  not  a  preposition  meaning  with,  but  the  ob- 
jective participle,  "  he  that  brought  up  from  the  sea  the  shepherds  of  his 
flock."  The  objection  to  making  J^?<  a  preposition  is  that  it  seems  to 
separate  the  case  of  Mose^  from  that  of  the  people.  The  Targum  seems 
to  make  it  a  particle  of  likeness  or  comparison,  as  a  shepherd  docs  his 
flock,  which  Gesenius  thinks  a  far  better  sense  ;  but  Hitzig  thinks  it  false, 
because  shepherds  do  not  bring  their  flocks  up  from  the  sea.  The  simplest 
construction  is  to  repeat  n'?yDn  before  nyi :  Where  is  ho  that  bri)Ught  them 
up  from  the  sea,  (that  brought  up)  the  shepherd  of  his  flock  ?  All  these 
constructions  suppose  the  sliepherd  to  be  Moses  ;  but  Knobel  understands 
it  to  be  God  himself,  as  in  Ps.  Ixxviii.  52,  and  repeats  the  verb  remembered, 
"(the  people)  remembered  the  shepherd  of  his  flock,"  which  makes  nn 
equally  good  sense,  liut  nearly  sixty  manuscripts  and  forty  editions  read 
*y">  in  the  plural,  which  may  then  be  understood  as  including  Aaron  (Ps. 
Ixxvii.  21),  and  as  Yitriuga  thinks  Miriiun  (Micah  vi.  1),  or  perhaps  the 
'seventy  elders  who  are  probably  referred  to  in  the  last  clause  as  under  a 
special  divine  influence.  (See  Num.  xi.  17.  Compare  Exod.  xxxi.  8, 
XXXV.  31.)     The  suffix  in  iS*!,??  refers  to  D^.     The  noun  itself  is  used  as 


Ver.  12,  13.]  ISAIAH  LXIIL  423 

in  1  Kings  xvii,  22.      The  clause  implies,  if  it  does  not  express  directly, 
the  idea  of  a  personal  spirit,  as  in  the  preceding  verse. 

12.  Leading  them  hi/  the  right  hand  of  Closes  {and)  his  glorious  arm, 
clearing  the  xcaters from  before  them,  to  make  for  him  an  everlasting  name? 
The  sentence  and  the  interrogation  are  continued  from  the  foregoing  verse. 
The  participle  with  the  article  there  defines  or  designates  the  subject  as 
the  one  bringing  tip  ;  the  participle  here  without  the  article  simply  con- 
tinues the  description.  Yitringa  and  the  later  writers  follow  Jarchi  in 
giving  a  VQXj  diflerent  construction  to  the  first  clause,  making  his  glorious 
arm  the  object  of  the  verb.  The  meaning  of  the  whole  then  is  as  follows : 
causing  his  glorious  arm  to  march  at  the  right  hand  of  Moses,  i.  e.  as  Jarchi 
explains,  causing  his  almighty  power,  of  which  the  arm  is  the  estabhshed 
symbol  (chap.  xl.  10,  lix.  16,  Ixiii.  5),  to  be  near  or  present  with  the  Pro- 
phet when  he  needed  its  interposition.  This  is  a  good  sense,  but  it  seems 
more  natural  to  give  "^vID  the  same  object  as  in  the  next  verse,  the  pro- 
noun which  is  there  expressed  being  here  understood.  The  ?,  which  the 
writers  above  mentioned  understand  as  in  Ps.  xvi.  8,  may  agreeably  to 
usage  denote  general  relation,  the  specific  sense  of  hg  being  not  expressed 
but  suggested  hj  the  context.  The  right  hand  may  be  mentioned  in 
allusion  to  the  wielding  of  the  rod  by  Moses,  and  the  glorious  arm  may  be 
either  his  or  that  of  God  himself,  which  last  sense  is  expressed  in  the 
English  version  by  a  change  of  preposition  (hg  the  right  hand  of  Mvses 
with  his  glorious  arm).  The  same  ambiguity  exists  in  the  last  clause, 
where  the  everlasting  name  may  be  the  honour  put  upon  Moses,  or  the 
glory  which  redounded  to  Jehovah  himself,  as  in  chap.  I  v.  13.  Ivnobel  is 
singular  and  somewhat  paradoxical  in  understanding  D\'?  yi?i3  as  descriptive 
of  the  smiting  of  the  rock  to  supply  the  people's  thirst,  simply  because  the 
passive  of  the  same  verb  is  applied  in  chap.  xxxv.  G  to  the  bursting  forth 
of  water  in  the  desert ;  whereas  it  is  repeatedly  employed,  both  in  the 
active  and  the  passive  form,  in  reference  to  the  cleaving  of  the  waters  of 
the  Red  Sea  (E.xod.  xiv.  21;  Ps.  lxx\-iii.  13;  Neh.  ix.  11),  and  is  so 
understood  here  by  all  other  writers  whom  I  have  consulted.  It  also 
agrees  better  with  the  expression  from  before  them,  which  implies  the  re- 
moval of  a  previous  obstruction. 

13.  JIahing  them  walk  in  the  depths,  like  the  horse  in  the  desert  tliey  shall 
not  stumble.  The  description  of  the  exodus  is  still  continued,  and  its 
perfect  security  illustrated  by  comparisons.  There  is  no  need  of  giving 
to  niDnJil  with  the  modern  writers  the  distinct  sense  of  waves  in  this  and 
other  places,  as  the  proper  meaning,  depths,  is  more  appropriate  and  striking 
in  a  poetical  description.  The  desert  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  referred 
to  as  a  vast  plain  free  fi'om  inequalities.  But  J.  D.  Michaelis,  after  twice 
announcing  that  he  never  rode  on  horseback  through  a  desert  in  his  life, 
makes  the  point  of  comparison  to  lie  in  the  fine  gravel  or  coarse  sand  with 
which  the  desert  of  Arabia  is  covered,  and  which  makes  an  admirable  foot- 
ing for  horses.  In  the  same  note,  and  in  the  same  spirit,  he  discards  the 
word  stumbling  {strancheln),  which  he  says  would  be  employed  by  one  who 
never  sat  upon  a  horse,  and  substitutes  another  [anstossen)  as  the  technical 
term  of  the  manege,  although  requiring  explanation  to  the  common  reader. 
The  last  verb  would  seem  most  naturally  to  refer  to  the  horse;  but  its  plural 
form  forbids  this  construction,  while  its  future  form  creates  a  difficulty  in 
referring  it  to  Israel.  Most  versions  get  around  this  dilfienlty  by  periphrasis, 
without  stumblinii,  so  as  not  to  stumble,  or  the  like.  The  true  solution  is 
aflforded  by  the  writer's  frequent  habit  of  assuming  his  position  in  the  midst 


421  ISAIAH  LXIII.  [Yer.  11,  15. 

of  the  events  which  he  describes,  and  speaking  of  them  as  he  would  have 
spoken  if  he  had  been  really  so  situated.  The  comparison  in  the  first  clause 
brings  up  to  his  view  the  people  actually  passing  through  the  wilderness ; 
and  in  his  confident  assurance  of  their  safe  and  ea;  y  progress  he  exclaims, 
"  they  will  not  stumble !"  The  same  explanation  is  admissible  in  many 
cases  where  it  is  customary  to  confound  the  tenses,  or  regard  their  use  as 
perfectly  capricious.  As  Knobel  in  the  foregoing  verse  supposes  an  allu- 
sion to  the  smiting  of  the  rock,  so  here  he  refers  the  description  to  the 
■  passage  of  the  Jordan,  as  if  unsvilling  to  acknowledge  any  reference  to  the 
Red  Sea  or  the  actual  exodus  from  Egypt. 

11.  As  the  herd  into  the  valley  will  go  doivn,  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  will 
make  him  rest.  So  didst  thou  lead  thy  people,  to  make  for  thyself  a  name 
of  glory. — npn?  is  probably  here  used  in  its  collective  sense  of  cattle, 
rather  than  in  that  of  an  individual  animal  or  beast.  This  version  is  not 
only  more  exact  than  the  common  one,  but  removes  the  ambiguity  in  the 
construction,  by  precluding  the  reference  of  hitn,  in  make  him  rest,  to  the 
preceding  noun,  which  is  natural  enough  in  the  English  Version,  thotigh 
forbidden  in  Hebrew  by  the  dilTerence  of  gender. — The  him  really  refers  to 
Israel  or  people.  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Lowth  follow  the  ancient  versions, 
which  they  understand  as  reading  -ISn^iri  tvill  guile  him.  But  the  idea  of 
guidance  is  sufficiently  implied  in  the  common  reading,  which  may  be 
understood  as  meaning  "  will  bring  him  to  a  place  of  rest,"  a  form  of  ex- 
pression often  used  in  reference  to  the  promised  land.  (Dent.  xii.  0,  10, 
Ps.  xcv.  11,  &c.  A  similar  agency  is  elsewhere  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of 
God.  (Ps.  cxliii.  10,  Hagg.  ii.  6,  Neh.  ix.  20.) — The  use  of  the  futures  in 
this  clause  is  precisely  the  same  as  in  the  foregoing  verse.  In  the  last 
clause  the  Prophet  ceases  to  regard  the  scene  as  actually  present,  and 
resumes  the  tone  of  historical  retrospection,  at  the  same  time  summing  up 
the  whole  in  one  comprehensive  proposition,  thxLs  didst  thou  lead  thy  people. 
—  With  the  last  words  of  the  verse  compare  chap.  Ix.  21,  Ixi.  3. 

15.  Look  {diitm)from  heaven  and  see  /row  thy  dwelling-place  of  holiness 
and  licauty  !  ^^^^ere  is  thy  zeal  and  thy  might  (or  mighty  deeds)  f  The 
sounding  of  thy  bowels  and  thy  niercifs  towards  me  have  vnlhdrawn  them- 
selves. The  foregoing  description  of  (lod's  ancient  favours  is  now  made  the 
ground  of  an  importunate  appeal  for  new  ones.  The  unusual  word  for 
dwelling-place  is  borrowed  from  the  prayer  of  Solomon  (1  Kings  viii.  18). 
For  a  similar  description  of  heaven,  see  above,  chap.  Ivii.  15.  God  is  here 
represented  as  withdrawn  into  heaven,  and  no  longer  active  upon  earth. 
For  the  meaning  of  his  zeal,  see  above,  on  chap.  lix.  17.  Jnrchi  adds 
njtT'Ktn,  i,e.  thy /ormer  zeal.  Eighteen  manuscripts,  two  editions,  and  the 
ancient  versions,  read  ini^-l^j  in  the  singular.  The  plural  probably  denotes 
mighty  deeds  or  feats  of  strength,  as  in  1  Kings  xv.  28,  xvi.  27,  xxii.  40. 
pon  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  secondary  sense  nf  (multitude),  as  it  is  by  the 
Septuagint  (rr/.riOo;)  and  the  Vulgate  [jnuJtitudn),  but  in  its  primary  sense 
of  comtnotion,  nou'<c.  The  verbal  root  is  applied  in  like  manner  to  the 
movements  of  eompassinn,  chap.  xvi.  11,  Jer.  xxxi.  20,  xlviii.  H('»,  in  the 
last  of  which  j)laee8  it  is  connected  with  the  verbal  root,  of  2*on"l,  the 
parallel  expression  in  the  case  before  us.  Although  we  are  obliged  to 
render  one  of  these  nouns  by  a  literal  and  the  other  by  a  figurative  term, 
both  of  them  properly  denote  the  viscera,  on  the  figurative  use  of  which  to 
fiip^ify  strong  feeling,  see  vol.  i.  p.  829. — The  last  verb  in  the  verse 
denotes  a  violent  suppression  or  restraint  of  strong  emotion  (Gen.  xliii.  80, 
xlv.  1),  and  is  sometimes  applied  directly  to  God  himself.  (See  above,  chap. 


Vee.  10.]  ISAIAH  LXIII.  -125 

xlii.  14,  and  below,  chap.  Ixiv.  11.)  The  kst  claiTse  may  be  variously 
divided,  without  a  material  change  of  meaning.  The  English  Version  makes 
the  last  verb  a  distinct  interrogation,  are  they  restrained?  Henderson 
makes  the  second  question  the  larger  of  the  two,  are  the  sonndivg  of  thy 
loivch  /  &c.  The  objection  to  both  is,  that  the  second  question  is  not 
natural,  and  that  they  arbitrarily  assume  an  interrogative  construction, 
without  anything  to  indicate  it,  as  the  where  cannot  be  repeated.  Vitringa 
and  Hitzig'make  tbe  whole  one  question,  and  supply  the  relative  before  the 
last  verb,  where  is  thy  zeal,  &c.,  tuhich  are  restrained?  But  the  simple&t 
construction  is  that  which  makes  the  last  clause  a  simiile  affirmation  (Gc- 
seuius),  or  an  impassioned  exclamation  (Ewald).  There  is  something 
peculiarly  expressive  in  Luther's  paraphrase  of  this  last  clause,  deine  grosse 
herzUche  Barinherziykeit  halt  sich  hart  gegen  mich. 

16.  For  thou  {art)  our  father ;  for  Abraham  hath  not  know n  us,  and 
Israel  trill  not  recognise  us,  thou  Jehovah  (art)  our  father,  our  redeemer,  of 
old  (or  from  everlasting)  is  thy  name.  The  common  version  needlessly 
obscures  the  sense  and  violates  the  usage  of  the  language  by  rendering  the 
lirst  ^3  doubtless,  and  the  second  though.  RosenmuUer  gives  the  first  the 
sense  of  6w^  simply  observing  that  the  particle  is  hei-e  not  causal,  but  adver- 
sative. This  wanton  variation  from  the  ordinary  sense  of  terms,  whenever 
there  appears  to  be  the  least  obscurity  in  the  connection,  is  one  of  the  en-prs 
of  the  old  school  of  interpreters,  retained  by  Rosenmiiller,  who  is  a  kindof  Hnk 
between  them  and  the  moderns.  The  later  German  writers  are  more  rigidly 
exact,  and  Maurer,  in  particular,  observes  in  this  case  that  the  ""S  has  its 
proper  causal  sense  in  reference  to  the  first  clause  of  ver.  15.  Why  do  we 
ask  thee  to  look  down  from  heaven  and  to  hear  our  prayer '?  Because  thou 
art  our  father.  This  docs  not  merely  mean  our  natural  creator,  but  oar 
founder,  our  national  progenitor,  as  inDeut.  xxxii.  6.  Here,  however,  it  ap- 
pears to  be  employed  in  an  emphatic  and  exclusive  sense,  as  if  he  had  said, 
"  Thou,  and  thou  alone,  art  our  father;"  for  he  immediately  adds,  as  if  to  ex- 
plain and  justify  this  strange  assertion,  "  for  Abraham  has  not  known  us,  and 
Israel  will  not  recognise  or  acknowledge  us."  The  assimilation  of  these  tenses, 
as  if  both  past  or  future,  is  entirely  arbitrary,  and  their  explanation  as  both 
present  a  gratuitous  evasion.  As  in  many  other  cases,  past  and  future  are 
here  joined  to  make  the  proposition  universal.  Dropping  the  peculiar  pa- 
rallel construction,  the  sense  is,  that  neither  Abraham  nor  Israel  have  known 
or  will  know  anything  about  us,  have  recognised  or  will  hereafter  recog- 
nise us  as  their  children.  The  meaning,  therefore,  cannot  be  that  Abra- 
ham and  Israel  are  ashamed  of  us  as  unworthy  and  degenerate  descend- 
ants, as  Piscator  understands  it ;  or  that  Abraham  and  Israel  cannot  save 
us  by  their  merits,  as  Cocceius  understands  it;  or  that  Abraham  and  Israel 
did  not  deliver  us  from  Eg}-pt,  as  the  Targum  understands  it;  or  that 
Abraham  and  Israel,  being  now  dead,  can  do  nothing  for  us,  as  Vitringa 
and  the  later  writers  understand  it.  All  these  interpretations,  and  a  number 
of  unnatural  constructions  and  false  versions,  some  of  which  have  been 
already  mentioned,  owe  their  origin  to  the  insuperable  difficulty  of  applying 
these  words,  in  their  strict  and  unperverted  sense,  to  the  Jews  as  the  natural 
descendants  of  the  patriarchs  in  question.  Henderson's  mode  of  reconciling 
what  is  here  said  with  his  general  application  of  the  prophecies  is  curious 
enough.  After  justly  observing  that  "the  hereditary  descent  of  the  Jews 
from  Abraham,  and  their  dependence  upon  his  merits  and  those  of  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  form  the  proudest  grounds  of  boasting  among  them  at  the  present 
day,  as  they  did  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,"  he  adds  that,  "when  converted. 


426  ISAIAH  LXllI.  [Ver.  17. 

tbcj-  shall  be  ashamed  of  all  such  coufidence,  and  glory  in  Jehovah  alone." 
Such  an  efl'cct  of  individual  conversion  and  regeneration  may  be  certainly 
expected ;  but  a  general  restoration  of  the  Jews  as  a  people,  not  onl}'  to 
the  favour  of  God  but  to  the  laud  of  their  fathers,  and  not  only  to  the  land 
of  their  fathers,  but  to  pre-cuiiuence  among  the  nations,  so  that  their  temple 
shall  again  be  universally  frequented,  and  the  whole  worhl  reduced  to  the 
alternative  of  perishing  or  serving  them,  is  so  far  from  naturally  tending  to 
correct  the  evil  which  has  been  described,  that  nothing  but  a  miracle  would 
*Beem  sulhcient  to  prevent  its  being  aggi"avated  vastly  by  the  very  means 
which  Henderson  expects  to  work  a  final  cure.  The  true  sense  of  the 
verse,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  that  the  church  or  chosen  people,  although 
once,  for  temporary  reasons,  coextensive  and  coincident  wiih  a  single  race, 
is  not  essentially  a  national  organization,  but  a  spiritual  body.  Its  father  is 
not  Abraham  or  Israel,  but  Jehovah,  who  is  and  always  has  been  its 
redeemer,  who  has  borne  that  name  from  everlasting ;  or  as  Hitzig  under- 
stands the  last  clause,  he  is  oui-  redeemer,  whose  name  is  from  everlasting. 
Most  interpreters,  however,  are  agreed  in  understanding  this  specific  name 
of  our  redei'iner  to  be  here  described  as  everlasting  or  eternal.  According 
to  the  explanation  which  has  now  been  given,  this  verse  explicitly  asserts 
what  is  implied  and  indirectly  taught  throughout  these  prophecies,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  true  design  and  mission  of  the  church,  and  its  relation  to  Jehovah, 
to  the  world,  and  to  the  single  race  with  which  of  old  it  seemed  to  be 
identified.  This  confii-mation  of  our  previous  conclusions  is  the  more  satis- 
factory, because  no  use  has  hitherto  been  made  of  it,  by  anticipation,  in 
determining  the  sense  of  many  more  obscure  expressions,  to  which  it  may 
now  be  considered  as  aflording  a  decisive  key.  It  only  remains  to  add,  as 
a  preventive  of  misapprehension,  that  the  strong  terms  of  this  verse  are 
of  course  to  be  comparatively  understood,  not  as  implying  that  the  church 
will  ever  have  occasion  to  repudiate  its  historical  relation  to  the  patriarchs, 
or  cease  to  include  among  its  members  many  of  their  natural  descendants, 
but  simply  as  denying  all  continued  or  perpetual  pre-eminence  to  Israel  as  a 
race,  and  exalting  the  coninum  relation  of  believers  to  their  great  Head  as 
paramount  to  all  connecti(m  with  particular  progenitors  ; — the  very  doctrine 
so  repeatedly  and  emphatically  taught  in  the  New  Testament. 

17.  Whj  will  thou  make  us  wander,  0  Jehovah,  from  thj  ways  ;  {why) 
wilt  thou  harden  our  heart  from  thyfrarf  Ketum,  for  the  sake  of  thy  nfr- 
vants,  the  tribes  of  thy  iiilteritanc^'.  The  earnestness  of  the  prayer  is 
evinced  by  an  increasing  boldness  of  expostulation.  Rosenmiiller  shews, 
by  a  reference  to  Dent.  ii.  28,  and  1  Sam.  xiv.  3G,  that  the  Hiphil  often 
signifies  permission  rather  than  direct  causation.  But  although  this  usage 
is  indisputable,  it  is  hero  forbidden  by  the  parallel  expression,  which  can 
hardly  mean  to  sufl'er  to  grow  hard,  and  rendered  unnecessary  by  the 
frequency  and  clearness  with  which  such  an  agency  is  ascribed  to  God  him- 
self elsewhere.  As  to  the  sense  of  such  expressions,  see  vol.  i.  p.  152. 
Equall}'  shallow  and  malignant  are  the  comments  of  the  German  writers 
on  this  subject ;  as  a  specimen  of  which  may  bo  given  Hitzig's  statement 
that  "Jehovah  makes  men  sinners  for  the  sake  of  punishing  them  after- 
wards; to  the  question  why  ho  does  so,  the  East,"  by  which  he  means  the 
Bible,  "  makes  no  answer.  Compai'c  Rom  ix.  17-22."  The  future  verbs 
are  not  to  bo  arbitrarily  explained  as  preterites,  or  (with  Hitzig)  as  imply- 
ing that  the  action  still  continues,  but  as  asking  why  he  will  continue  so  to 
do.  The  second  verb  occurs  only  hero  and  in  Job  xxxix.  10,  whore  it  is 
applied  to  the  ostrich's  hard  treatment  of  her  young.     It  is  obviously  near 


Ver.  18.]  ISAIAH  LXIII.  ■  427 

akin  to  T\'^%  and  Vitringa  thinks  the  substitution  of  the  stronger  guttural 
has  an  intensive  effect  upon  the  meaning.  The  particle  mfrom  thy  fear 
is  commonly  supposed  to  have  a  primitive  or  negative  meaning,  so  as  not  to 
fear  thee;  but  there  is  rather  an  allusion  to  the  wandenng  just  before 
mentioned,  as  if  he  had  said,  "  And  why  wilt  thou  make  us  wander,  by 
hardening  our  heart,  from  thy  fear  ? ' '  This  last  expression,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  includes  all  the  duties  and  affections  of  true  piety.— For  the  sense  of 
God's  returning  to  his  peeple,  see  above,  on  chap.  lii.  8.  The  tribes  of  thine 
inheritance  is  an  equivalent  expression  to  thij  people ;  which  originated  in 
the  fact  that  Israel,  like  other  ancient  oriental  races,  was  divided  into  tribes. 
The  argument  drawn  from  this  expression  in  favour  of  applying  tlie  whole 
passagc°to  the  Jews,  proves  too  much ;  for  the  distinction  into  tribes  is  as 
much  lost  now  among  the  Jews  as  among  the  Gentiles.  The  Jews,  indeed, 
are  properly  but  one  tribe,  that  of  Judah,  in  which  the  remnants  of  the 
others  were  absorbed  after  the  exile. 

18.   For  a  little  Oirj  holy  people  jwssessed,  our  enemies  trod  down  thy 
sanctuari/.     The  sense  of  this  verse  is  extremely  dubious.     "i^VP  is  else- 
where used  in  reference  to  magnitude  (Gen.  xix.  20),  and  number  (2  Chron. 
xxiv.  24),  not  to  time.    J.  D.  Michaelis  connects  it  with  the  foregoing  verse, 
and  reads,  "  the  tribes  of  thy  inheritance  have  become  a  little  thing,"  i.e.  an 
object  of  contempt.     So  the  Vulgate,  quasi  nihilum.     The  Septuagint  also 
joins  the  first  clause  with  ver.  17,  and  omits  the  second,  "that  we  may  inherit 
a  little  of  thy  holy  mountain,"  reading  in  for  DV  which  is  approved  by  Lowth. 
Cocceius  takes  ^V>*^^  i^  the  sense  of  almost,  like  t2yo3  (Gen  xxvi.  10, 
Ps.  Ixxiii.  2.)     Lowth,  Kocher,  and  Kosenmuller,  make  it  equivalent  to 
the  Latin  parvum.     But  Vitringa  and  the  later  writers  understand  it  as 
an  abverb  of  time,  cognate  and  equivalent  to  IJ/IP  (chap.  x.  25,_xxix.  17). 
Another  question  is  whether  thy  holy  people  is  the  subject  or  object  of  the 
verb  possessed.     Thus  Grotius  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that  the 
enemy /or  a  little  ivhile  possessed  thy  holy  people  ;  and  Cocceius,  that  they 
almost  possessed  thy  holy  people;   Kocher  and   Rosenmiiller,  it  was   not 
enough  that  they  possessed  thy  holy  people,  they  also  trampled  on  thy 
sanctuary  ;  Lowth,  it  was  little  that  they  did  both,  if  God  had  not  besides 
rejected  them.     The  subject  is  then  to  be  supplied  from  the  other  clause,  or 
brought  into  this,  by  a  removal  of  the  accent  and  a  consequent  change  of 
interpunction.     The  modern  writers  ai'e  agreed,  however,  in  making  holy 
people  the  subject  of  the  verb,  and  supplying  the  object  from  the  other 
clause,  ih>i  sanctuary,  which  is  understood  by  Hitzig  as  denoting  the  entire 
holy  laiul  {Zech.  ii.  IG),  as  the  cities  of  Judah  are,  ho  thinks,  called  holy  cities 
in  chap.  Ixiv.  9.    Maurer  suggests  another  method  of  providing  both  a  sub- 
ject and  an  object  to  the  verb  by  omitting  the  makkeph  and  reading  V^'n; 
■l^hi?  DV,  the  people  possessed  thy  holy  (thing  or  place).     According  to 
the  usual  construction  of  the  sentence,  it  assigns  as  a  reason  for  Jehovah's 
interference,  the  short  time  during  which  the  chosen  people  had  possessed 
the  land  of  promise.     But  it  may  be  objected  that  ^y^*»?  would  naturally 
seem  to  (qualify  both  clauses,  which  can  only  be  prevented  by  supplying 
arbitrarilv  between  them  and  then  or  noiu.     This  consideration  may  be  said 
to  favour  Grotius's  construction  ;    which  is  further  recommended  by  its 
grammatical  simphcity,  in  giving  to  both  verbs  one  and  the  same  subject. 
What  is  common  to  "^both  explanations  is  the  supposition  that  the  verse 
describes  a  subjection  to  enemies.     The  question  upon  which  they  disagree 
is  whether  this  subjection  is  itself  described  as  temporary,  or  the  peaceable 
possession  which  preceded  it.— In  no  case  can  an  argument  be  drawn  fi-om 


428  ISAIAH  LX I II.  [Ver.  19. 

it  to  prove  that  this  whole  passage  has  respect  to  the  Jews  in  their  present 
dispersion  :  first,  because  the  sufferings  of  the  church  in  after  ages  are 
frequently  presented  under  figures  drawn  from  the  peculiar  institutions  of 
the  old  economy  ;  and  secondly,  because  the  early  histor}-  of  Israel  is  as 
much  the  early  history  of  the  Christian  Church  as  of  the  Jewish  nation,  so 
that  we  have  as  much  right  as  the  Jews  to  lament  the  profanation  of  the 
Holy  Land,  and  more  cause  to  pray  for  its  recovery  by  Christendom,  than 
they  for  its  restoration  to  themselves.  Ge^enius's  translation  of  I  Dpi3  as 
meaning  plundered,  although  copied  by  Umbreit,  is  most  probably  nn  in- 
advertence ;  as  no  such  meaning  of  the  verb  is  given  or  referred  to  in  any 
of  his  Hebrew  lexicons.  The  error  was  observed  and  corrected  even  by  De 
Wette  and  Xoyes,  the  two  most  faithful  followers  of  Gesenius  in  his  version 
of  Isaiah. 

19.    /Cc  (rre  of  old,   ihou  hast  not  ruled   over   them,   thy  name  has   not 
been  called  upon  them.      Oh  that  thou  icouldd  rend  the  hearena  {and)  come 
down,  {that )  from  before  thee  the  mountains  might  quake  (or  flow  down). 
Most  of  the  modem  writers  have  adopted  a  construction  of  the  first  clause 
suggested  by  the  paraphrastic  versions  of  the   Septuagint  and  Vulgate. 
This  supposes  the  description  of  the  people's  alienation  from  God  to  be 
continued  :   We  have  long  been  those  (or  like  those)  over  whom  thou  didst 
not  rule,  and  who  were  not  called  by  thy  name  ;  that  is  to  say,  thou  hast 
long  regarded  and  treated  us  as  aliens  rather  than  thy  chosen  people.     The 
cyiyp  is  then  rcfeired  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
or  by  Titus,  according  to  the  general  exegetical  hypothesis  of  each  inter- 
preter.    Tlie  ellipsis  of  the  relative  involved  in  this  construction  can  create 
no  ditHculty,  as  it  is  one  of  perpetual  occurrence  ;  but  the  sense  which  it 
puts  upon  the  clause  is  verv-  far  from  being  obvious,  or  one  which  a  Hebrew 
writer  would  be  likely  to  express  in  this  way.     Another  old  and  well-known 
construction  of  the  clause  is  founded  on  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase,  which 
understands  this,  not  as  a  description  of  their  miserv',  but  an  assertion  of 
their  claim  to  relief,  in  the  form  of  a  comparison  between  themselves  and 
their  oppressors.     This  is  the  sense  given  in  the  English  Version  :   We  ore 
thine,  than  never  barest  rule  over  them,  Sec.     To  this  form  of  the  interpreta- 
tion it  has  been  objected,  not  without  reason,  that  it  puts  upon  the  verb  ir^ 
are  or  hare  heen  a  sense  not  justified  by  usage,  or  in  other  words,  that  it 
arbitrarily  supplies  the  essential  idea  upon  which  the  whole  turns,  namely, 
thine  or  //i//  profile.     lint  this  ol)jection  may  bo  easily  removed  by  coiniect- 
ing  the  verb  with  CpiVP,  ue  are  if  nid.     The  point  of  comparison  is  then 
their  relative  antiipiity,  the  enemy  being  represented  as  a  new  race  come 
into  possession  of  the  rights  belonging  to  the  old.     There  is  then  no  need 
of  supplying  thine,  the  relation  of  the  people  to  Ji'hovah  being  not  particu- 
larly hinted  here,  although  suggested  by  the  whole  connection.     AVith  this 
modification,  the  construction  of  the  Targuni  and  the  Knglish  Bible  seems 
entitled  to  the  preference. —  I'hou  didst  not   rule  over  them.     This  has  no 
reference,  of  course,  to   God's  providential  government,  but  only  to  the 
peculiar  theocratical  relation  which  he  bears  to  his  own  people.     The  same 
idea  is  expressed  by  the  following  words,  as  to  the  sense  of  which  see  above, 
on  chap,  xlviii.  1.     The  inconvenience  of  strongly  marked  divisions  in  a 
book  like  this,  is  exeniplitied  by  the  disputes  among  interpreters,  whether 
the  remaining  words  of  tliis  verso  as  it  stands  in  the  Masoretic  text  should 
or  should  not  bo  separated  from  it,  and  connected  with  the  following  chap- 
ter.    Gesenius  and  the  later  writers  choose  the  latter  course,  while  llosen- 
miillcr  stedfastly  adheres   to  the  Masoretic   interpunction.     The  simple 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAII  LXIV.  429 

truth  is  that  there  ought  to  be  no  pause  at  all  iu  this  place,  the  transition 
from  complaint  to  the  expression  of  an  ardent  wish  being  not  only  iuten- 
tioLial,  but  highly  ellectivc.  It  is  true  that  this  clause  ought  not  to  be 
separated  from  what  follows  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  ought  to  be 
severt'd  from  what  goes  before,  a  gross  non  S('(ji(itiir,  with  which  the  reason- 
ing of  some  learned  writers  is  too  often  justly  chargeable.  Ewald  reckons 
the  remainder  of  this  sentence  as  the  first  verse  of  the  sixty-fourth  chapter, 
on  the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions,  but  obviates  the  inconvenience 
commonly  attending  it,  by  throwing  the  whole  context,  from  ver.  18  to 
ver.  5  of  the  next  chapter,  botli  inclusive,  into  one  unbroken  paragraph. 
Our  owu  exposition  will  proceed  upon  the  principle  heretofore  applied,  that 
this  is  a  continuous  comijosition,  that  the  usual  divisions  are  mere  matters 
of  convenience  or  inconvenience  as  the  case  may  be,  and  that  more  harm 
is  likely  to  result  from  too  much  than  from  too  little  sc^paration  of  the  parts. 
The  passionate  apostrophe  in  this  clause,  far  from  being  injured  or  obscured, 
is  rendered  more  expressive  by  its  close  connection  with  the  previous  com- 
plaints and  lamentations.  The  idea  now  suggested  is,  that  weary  of  com- 
plaint, the  people,  or  the  Prophet  speaking  for  them,  suddenly  appeals  to 
God  directly  with  an  ardent  wish  that  he  would  deal  with  them  as  in  days 
of  old.  For  the  construction  of  the  optative  particle  K-1?,  see  above,  on 
chap,  xlviii.  18.  The  Targum  and  Luzzatto  make  it  negative,  as  if  writtea 
Ni?  or  ii^,  a  variation  which  does  not  materially  ati'ect  the  sense,  but  merely 
changes  the  expression  of  a  wish  that  something  might  be  done,  to  a  com- 
plaint that  it  is  not  done;  "thou  hast  not  rent  the  heavens,"  Sec.  The 
remaining  words  are  a  poetical  description  of  Jehovah's  interposition  or  the 
manil'estation  of  his  presence,  under  figures  drawn  perhaps  from  the  account 
of  his  epiphany  on  Sinai.  Gesenius  explains  -IPTJ  to  denote  commotion  ; 
Ewald  adheres  to  the  old  etymology  and  sense  of  melting. 


CHAPTER   LXIY. 

This  chapter,  like  the  one  before  it,  from  which  it  is  iu  fact  inseparable, 
has  respect  to  the  critical  or  turning-point  between  the  old  and  new  dispen- 
sations, and  presents  it  just  as  it  might  naturally  have  appeared  to  the 
believing  Jews,  i  e.  the  first  Christian  converts,  at  that  juncture.  The 
strongest  confidence  is  expressed  in  the  divine  power,  founded  upon  former 
experience,  vers.  1-3.  The  two  great  facts  of  Israel's  rejection  as  a  nation, 
and  the  continued  existence  of  the  church,  are  brought  together  in  ver.  4.. 
The  unworthiness  of  Israel  is  acknowledged  still  more  fully,  vers.  5,  G.  The 
sovereign  authority  of  God  is  humbly  recognised,  ver.  7.  His  favour  is 
earnestly  implored,  vt-r.  8.  The  external  prerogatives  of  Israel  are  lost, 
ver.  9.  But  will  God  for  that  cause  cast  oli'  the  true  Israel,  his  owu  church 
or  people  ?  ver.  10. 

1.  As  fire  kindles  Irush,  fire  both  tvater — lo  make  known  ihy  name  io 
thine  enemies,  from  hi'fvre  thee  nations  shall  tremble.  The  last  clause 
coheres  directly  with  the  preceding  verse,  while  the  first  is  a  parenthetical 
comparison ;  for  which  cause  some  of  the  latest  writers  thro\y  the  last 
words  of  chap.  Ixiii.  into  this  sentence.  This,  for  reasons  which  have  been 
already  given,  is  unnecessary  ;  it  is  sufficient  to  observe  the  connection  upon 
which  the  proposed  arrangement  rests.  As  nni?  is  both  transitive  and  intran- 
sitive, either  of  two  constructions  may  be  here  adopted —  as  a  fire  of  brush- 
wood burns,  or,  as  fire  kindles  brush — the  last  of  which  is  preferred  by 


480  ISAIAH  LXIV.  [Ver.  2,  3. 

most  interpreters,  as  simpler  iu  itself,  and  because/re  is  tbo  subject  of  the 
verb  iu  tbe  next  clause  also.  Tbe  various  explanations  of  D^por?  b}-  the 
older  writers  are  detailed  by  Vitriu;^a  and  Koseuniiiller.  Tbe  ancient  ver- 
sions and  several  of  the  rabbins  derive  it  from  DpO,  to  melt,  but  in  violation 
of  etymological  analop}'.  The  first  hint  of  the  true  sense  vsas  given  by 
llabbi  Jonah,  who  pronounces  it  to  mean  dry  stubble  (33'  Cp),  and  the 
definition  has  been  since  completed  by  the  Arabic  analogy.  Schultcns' 
construction  of  the  next  words,  aqum  ej/'ervescunt  vjne,  involves  a  twofold 
irregularity,  viz.  in  gender  and  in  number,  which  is  not  to  be  assumed  without 
necessity.  The  point  of  comparison  in  both  these  clauses  is  the  rapidity 
and  case  with  which  the  effect  is  produced.  Hitzig  supposes  a  specific 
allusion  in  the  second  to  the  houhvcrsement  or  complete  transposition  of  the 
particles  of  boiling  water,  as  an  emblem  of  the  general  confusion  which  the 
presence  of  Jehovah  would  produce  ;  but  this  is  more  ingenious  and  refined 
than  natural.  The  literal  eflect  is  described  in  the  next  words,  to  make 
known  thy  name,  /.  e.  to  manifest  thy  being  and  thine  attributes  to  thine 
enemies.  In  both  parts  of  the  sentence  the  construction  passes  as  it  were 
insensibly  from  the  infinitive  to  the  future,  a  transition  not  uufi-equent  in 
Hebrew  syntax.  The  last  future  is  supposed  by  the  latest  writers  to  be  still 
dependent  on  the  optative  particle  in  chap.  Ixiii.  19,  "  Oh  that  the  nations 
at  thy  presence  might  tremble."  But  as  the  infinitive  immediately 
precedes,  and  as  N"l?  is  there  construed  with  the  pra'ter,  it  is  better  to 
regard  1TJ"i*  simply  as  a  statement  of  what  would  be  the  efl"ect  of  God's 
appearance. 

2.  In  thy  doing  fearful  things  [ichich)  ue  ej-pcct  not,  {oh  that)  thou 
wouldxt  come  down,  {that)  the  mountainn  from  before  thee  might  fow  dotcn. 
There  are  two  veiT  diflerent  constructions  of  this  verse.  Gesenius  agrees 
with  the  English  Version  in  making  it  a  direct  historical  statement  of  a 
past  event :  "  "When  thou  didst  terrible  things  which  we  looked  not  for,  thou 
camest  down,  the  mountains  flowed  doN\-n  at  thy  presence."  This  seems  to 
be  the  simplest  possible  construction  ;  but  it  is  attended  by  a  serious  gram- 
matical ditliculty,  viz.  the  necessity  of  referring  the  future  n?;?^  to  past 
time,  without  anything  in  the  connection  to  faciliate  or  justify  the  version. 
On  the  other  hand,  this  word  appears  to  be  decisive  of  the  future  bearing 
of  the  whole  verse,  and  in  favour  of  the  syntax  adopted  by  Hitzig,  Ewald, 
and  Ivnobel,  which  supposes  tlio  influence  of  the  optative  particle  to  be 
still  continued  through  this  verse,  as  well  as  that  before  it :  (Oh  that)  in 
doing  ten-ible  things,  such  as  we  expect  not,  thou  wouldst  come  down, 
&c.  There  is  then  no  need  of  resorting  to  forced  explanations  of  the  sense 
in  which  the  Prophet  could  speak  as  if  he  had  been  present  at  mount 
Sinai.  The  construction  of  the  praiterito  with  N1?  is  the  same  as  in  chap. 
Ixiii.  19. 

J.  And  from  eternittj  they  have  not  heard,  they  have  not  perceived  hy  the 
ear,  the  eye  hath  not  neen,  a  Cod  beside  thee  {trho)  icill  do  for  {one)  trait ing 
for  him.  This  verso  assigns  a  reason  why  such  fearful  things  should  be 
expected  from  Jebnviih,  namely,  because  he  alone  had  proved  himself  able  to 
perfonu  them.  Kinichi  supplies  niDIX,  nations,  as  the  subject  of  the  plural 
verbs  ;  but  they  are  really  indefinite,  and  mean  that  nun  in  general  have 
not  heard,  or,  as  wo  should  say,  that  no  one  has  heard,  or  in  a  passive 
form,  it  has  not  been  heard.  Do  may  bo  cither  takin  absolutely,  or  as 
governing  thtm,  i.e.  the  fearful  things  mentioned  in  ver.  2.  Wailing  for 
God  implies  faith,  hope,  and  patient  acquiescence.  (See  above,  on  chap, 
xl.  81.)     The  construction  here  given  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopted, 


Ver.  4.]  ISJIAII  LXIV.  431 

and  is  also  given  in  the  margin  of  the  EngUsh  Bible,  and  by  Grotius  and 
Cocceius  ;  while  the  text  of  that  version,  with  Yitringa  and  others,  makes 
D*n7^  a  vocative,  and  ascribes  to  God  not  only  the  doing  but  the  know- 
ledge of  the  fearful  things  in  question.  This  constnictioii  is  preferred  by 
Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  and  many  others,  and  agrees  better  with  Paul's 
quotation  (2  Cor.  ii.  9)  of  the  words  as  descriptive  of  the  gospel  as  a 
mystery  or  something  hidden  till  revealed  by  the  Spirit.  (Compare  Rom. 
XV.  2G,  and  Mat.  xiii.  17.)  But  in  this,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the 
apostle,  by  deliberately  vaiying  the  form  of  the  expression,  shews  that  it 
was  not  his  purpose  to  interpret  the  original  passage,  but  simply  to  make 
use  of  its  terms  in  expressing  his  own  thoughts  on  a  kindred  subject. 
Least  of  all  can  any  emendation  of  the  text  be  founded  upon  this  quotation, 
such  as  the  change  of  ''^riD  to  ''^no  from  3Dn,  which,  as  Vitringa  well 
observes,  although  applied  to  the  divine  love  for  man,  is  inappropriate  to 
human  love  for  God,  not  to  mention  the  unusual  construction  with  ^. 

4.  I'hoii  had  met  icith  one  rejoieinf/  and  executing  righteomness;  in  thy 
ways  shall  they  remember  thee ;  behold,  thou  hast  been  wroth,  and  tve  hare 
sinned;  in  them  is  j)erj)etuify,  and  ice  shall  be  saved.  There  is  perhaps 
no  sentence  in  Isaiah,  or  indeed  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  has  more 
divided  and  perplexed  interpreters,  or  on  which  the  ingenuity  and  learning 
of  the  modern  writers  have  thrown  less  light.  To  enumerate  the  various 
interpretations,  would  be  endless  and  of  no  avail.  Gesenius  professes  to 
recite  them,  but  gives  only  a  selection.  A  more  full  detail  is  furnished  by 
Vitringa  and  Rosenmiiller,  and  in  Poole's  Synopsis.  Nothing  more  will 
here  be  attempted  than  to  give  the  reader  some  idea  of  the  various  senses  which 
•have  been  attached  to  the  particular  expressions,  as  a  means  of  shewing 
that  we  have  at  best  but  a  choice  of  difficulties,  and  of  procuring  for  our  own 
exposition  a  more  favourable  hearing  than  it  might  be  thought  entitled  to 
in  other  circumstances.  The  first  verb  has  been  variously  taken  in  the 
sense  of  meeting  as  an  enemy  and  meeting  as  a  friend,  making  a  covenant, 
removing  out  of  life,  interceding,  and  accepting  intercession.  It  has  been 
construed  as  a  simple  affirmation,  both  in  the  past  and  present  form ;  as  a 
conditional  expression  [si  incidas) ;  and  as  the  expression  of  a  wish  [utinani 
ojj'endercs).  The  next  verb  has  been  also  treated  both  as  a  direct  and  as  a 
relative  expression,  they  will  remember  thee,  and  those  who  remember 
thee.  Thy  icays  has  been  explained  to  mean  the  way  of  God's  command- 
ments and  of  his  providential  dispensations.  In  them  has  been  referred 
to  ways,  to  sins,  to  suflerings,  to  the  older  race  of  Israelites.  Ci^)V  has 
been  treated  as  a  noun  and  as  an  adverb ;  as  meaning  perpetuity,  eternity, 
a  long  time,  and  for  ever.  V^"'^  has  been  changed  to  Vti'DJ,  and  the  common 
reading  has  been  construed  inteiTogativelj-  (shall  or  could  we  be  saved  ?  ), 
optatively  (may  we  be  saved),  and  indicatively,  present,  past,  and  future 
(we  have  been,  are,  or  shall  be  saved).  Of  the  various  combinations  of 
these  elements  on  record,  the  most  important  in  relation  to  the  fii'st  clause 
are  the  following  :  Thou  hast  taken  away  those  who  rejoiced  to  do  right- 
eousness, and  remembered  thee  in  thy  ways  (Kimchi).  Thou  didst  accept 
the  intercession  of  those  who  rejoiced,  &c.  (Aben  Ezra).  Thou  didst 
encounter  or  resist  as  if  they  had  been  enemies,  those  who  rejoiced,  &c. 
(Cocceius).  Thou  meetest  as  a  friend  him  rejoicing,  &c.  (Jerome).  If 
thou  meet  with  or  light  upon  one  rejoicing,  &c.,  they  will  remember  thee  in 
thy  ways  (Vitringa).  Oh  that  thou  mightcst  meet  with  one  rejoicing,  &c. 
(Ros.). — Of  the  second  clause,  the  following  constructions  may  be  noted : 
In  them  (i.  c.  om  sins)  we  have  been  always,  and  yet  we  shall  be  saved 


432  ISAIAH  LX I W  [Ver.  4. 

(Jerome).  We  have  sinned  against  them  (/'.  c.  tliy  ways),  always,  and  yet 
have  been  delivered.  In  them  [i.e.  thy  ways  of  mercy)  there  is  continu- 
ance, and  we  are  saved  (Piscator).  Thou  wast  angry  after  we  had  sinned 
against  them  (j.  e.  our  fathers),  and  yet  wo  are  safe  (Vitringa).  J.  D. 
Michaelis :  we  sinned  an  eternity  (/.  e.  for  ages)  among  them  (the  heathen) 
and  apostatized  (VC'CJI),     Lowth  :  thou  art  angry,   for  we  have  sinned  ; 

because  of  our  deeds  (IJvT'yDa),  for  we  have  been  rebellious  (yi.*'EJ1).    l{osen- 
miiller :  we  have  sinned  in  them  (thy  ways)  of  old,  and  can  we  be  saved  ? 
Kocher :  in  them  (our  miseries)  there  is  long  continuance  ;  uh  may  we  be 
saved  !     Maurer :  in  them  (the  ways  of  duty)  let  us  ever  go,  and  we  shall 
be  saved.     Hitzig:  thou  wast  angry,  and  we  sinned  on  that  account  (Q'"I3) 
continually,  and  can  we  l)e  saved  ?     Grotius  :  had  we  been  always  in  them 
(thy  ways),   we  should  have  been  saved.     Gesenius  substantially  agrees 
with  Kocher;  De  Wette  and  Umbreit  with   Rosenmiiller  ;  Henderson  with 
Piscator ;  Ewald  with   Hitzig :  Hendewerk  with   Grotius  ;  Knobel,  partly 
with  Jerome,  partly  with  Lowth,  and  partly  with  Kocher.     It   is  curious 
enough  that  Vitringa,  whose  construction  has  probably  never  been  adopted 
by  another  writer  on  the  passage,  says  of  it  himself,  aenswi  facillimus  ct 
oplimus  ut  qnisque  viderit.     Yet  in  his  exposition  of  the  vciy  next  verse 
he  says,  ayre  aspicw  homines,  ne  videaiitur  nihil  scrihere,  ra  in  certis  con- 
si(jn<tre,  quae  ipsi  facile  provideant  neminem  lecepturum  esse.     As   if  to 
shew  that  exegetical  invention  is  not  yet  exhausted,  the  ingenious  modem 
Rabbin,  Samuel  Luzziitto,  closes  his  curious  notes  on  Isaiah,  prefixed  to  the 
abridgment  of  Kosenniiilkr's  Scholia,  with  still  another  exjiosition  of  this 
verse,  and  of  the  whole  connection,  which  deserves  to  be  stated,  were  it  only 
for  its  novelty.     He  understands  the  people  as  denying  at  the  close  of  the 
preceding  chapter  (ver.  19)  that  Jehovah  had  attested  his  divinity  by  suit- 
able exertion  of  his  power  on  their  behalf.    At  the  beginning  of  this  chapter 
they  correct  themselves,  and  own  that  he  has  proved  himself  able  to  secure 
his  ends  as  easily  as  fire  kindles  chati'  or  causes  water  to  boil  (ver.  1) ;  but 
as  he  does  not  do  it,  this  neglect  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  cause  or  the 
occasion  of  tlieir  sins.     They  then  assure  him  that  they  know  his  ancient 
deeds,  even  when  they  were  not  looked  for  (ver.  2),  and  can  compare  them 
not  only  with  the  impotence  of  idols  (ver.  3),  but  with  his  present  inaction  : 
"  Thou  hast  to  do  with  those  who  rememler  thee  as  joyfully  exercising 
righteousness  in  thy  ways  (or  dispensations)  ;  oh  that  thou  wouldst  per- 
severe in  them  (those  ways)  for  ever,  that  we  might  be  saved." — I  shall 
not  attempt  to  define  what  is  correct  and  what  erroneous  in  these  vari(>U8 
constructions,  but  simply  to  justify  the  one  assumed  in  my  o«ii  version. 
The  general  meaning  of  the  sentence  maybe  thus  expressed  in  paraphrase: 
"  Although  thou  hast  cast  ofl"  Israel  as  a  nation,  thou  hast  nevertheless  met 
or  favourably  answered  every  one  rejoicing  to  do  righteousness,  and  in  thy 
ways  or  future  dispensations  such  shall  still  remember  and   acknowledge 
thee ;  thou  hast  been  angiy,  and  with  cause,  for  we   have  sinned  ;  but  in 
them,  thy  purposed  dispensations,   there  is  peri)etuity,   and  we  shall   be 
saved."     The  abrogation  of  the  old  economy,  though  fatal  to  the  national 
pre-eminence  of  Israel,  was  so  far  from  destroying  the  true  cliurch  or  the 
hopes  of  true  Itelievirs,  that  it  revealed  the  way  of  life  more  clearly  than 
ever,  and  substituted  for  an  insutlicient,  temporarv*  system,  a  complete  and 
everlasting  one.     In  this  constniction  of  the  sentence,  the  verb  y^S  and  the 
noun  cpiy  are  taken  in  their  usual  sense,  and  the  pronoun  in  Cn^  refers  to 
it«  natural  antecedent  T?'?'^. 


Ver.  5,  O.J  JSAIAJI  LXIV.  433 

o.  And  ice  were  like  the  unclean  (til  of  ux,  and  like  a  filthy  garment  all 
our  righteousness  (virtues  or  good  works),  and  ire  faded  like  the  (fading) 
leaf  all  of  us,  and  our  i)iiquities  like  the  wind  will  take  us  up  (or  carry  us 
away).  Having  shewn  wliat  \\wy  are  or  liope  to  be  through  the  mercy 
of  God  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  they  state  more  fully  what  they  are 
in  themselves,  and  what  they  must  expect  to  be  if  left  to  themselves.  This 
twofold  reference  to  their  past  experience  and  their  future  dcsliny  accoimts 
for  the  transition  from  the  praeter  to  the  future,  without  arbitrarily  con- 
founling  them  together. — Vitringa  makes  NP'^H  descriptive  of  a  leper,  which 
is  wholly  arbitrary ;  the  adjective  appears  to  be  used  absolutely  for  tlie  un- 
clean, or  that  which  is  unclean,  perhaps  with  a  superlative  emphasis,  like 
llOi^n,  in  chap.  Ix.  22.  Vitringa  and  Gesenius  dwell  with  great  zest  and 
fulness  on  the  strict  sense  of  D^^'V  1^?.  Some  understand  the  comparison 
with  withered  leaves  as  a  part  of  tbe  description  of  their  sin,  while  others 
apply  it  to  their  punishment.  The  first  hypothesis  is  favoured  by  the 
difl'erence  of  the  tenses,  which  has  been  akeady  noticed ;  the  last  by  the 
parallelism  of  the  clauses.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  here  as  in  chap. 
i.  4  the  two  things  ran  together  in  the  writer's  mind,  and  that  no  refined 
distinction  as  to  this  point  was  intended.  (With  the  figures  of  the  last 
clause  couipare  chap.  Ivii.  13,  Ps.  i.  1,  Job  xxvii.  21.)  Hitzig  and  Hende- 
werk  apply  this  last  expression  to  the  actual  deportation  of  the  Jews  to 
Babylon.  Yitringa,  having  satisfied  himself  that  this  whole  context  has 
respect  to  the  present  exile  and  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  takes  pleasure  in 
applying  the  particular  expressions  to  the  circumstances  of  that  great 
affliction.  It  is  very  remarkable,  however,  that  in  this,  as  in  other  cases 
heretofore  considered,  there  is  no  expression  which  admits  of  this  application 
exclusively,  and  none  which  admits  of  it  at  all  but  for  their  generality  and 
vagueness,  which  would  equally  admit  an  application  to  any  other  period 
of  distress  which  had  been  previously  set  down  as  the  specific  subject  of 
the  prophecy. 

6.  And  there  is  no  one  calling  on  thy  name,  rousing  himself  to  lay  hold  on 
thee ;  for  thou  hast  hid  thy  face  from  us,  and  hast  melted  us  because  of  (oT 
by  means  of)  our  iniquities.  The  German  ^mters  make  the  whole  his- 
torical and  retrospective,  so  as  to  throw  what  is  here  described  far  enough 
back  to  bo  the  antecedent-  and  procuring  cause  of  the  Babylonish  exile. 
But  although  there  is  evident  allusion  to  the  past  impHed  in  the  very  form 
of  the  expression,  the  description  reaches  to  the  present  also,  and  describes 
not  only  what  the  speakers  were,  but  what  they  are  when  considered  in 
themselves,  as  well  as  the  efiects  of  their  own  weakness  and  corruption 
which  they  have  already  experienced. — Calling  on  the  name  of  God  is  here 
used  in  its  proper  sense  of  praying  to  him  and  invoking  his  assistance  and 
protection ;  which  idea  is  expressed  still  more  strongly  by  the  next  phrase, 
rousing  himself  (which  implies  a  just  view  of  the  evil,  and  a  strenuous  exer- 
tion to  correct  it)  to  lay  hold  upon  thee, — a  strong  figure  for  attachment  to  a 
person,  and  reliance  on  him. — Lowth's  version  of  the  next  words,  "  therefore 
thou  hast  hidden,"  is  wholly  unauthorized  and  wholly  unnecessary,  since 
the  withdrawal  of  divine  grace  is  constantly  spoken  of  in  Scripture  both  as 
the  cause  and  the  eflect  of  men's  continued  nhenation  from  God.  Grotius, 
Cappellus,  Houbigant,  Lowth,  and  Ewald,  read  13J30n  from  pO,  "thou  hast 
delivered  us  into  the  hand  of  our  iniquities."  (See  Gen.  xiv.  20;  Prov. 
iv.  9).  This  sense  is  also  expressed  by  several  of  the  ancient  versions,  but 
has  probably  arisen  not  from  a  difl'erence  of  text,  but  from  a  wish  to  assi- 

VOL.  II.  E  e 


434  ISAIAH  LXir.  [Veb.  7,  8. 

ruilate  the  verb  to  tlio  following  expression,  in  the  hand.  Gesenius  and 
most  of  the  late  writers  suppose  >10  in  this  one  place  to  have  the  transitive 
sense  of  causing  to  dissolve,  in  which  twofold  usage  it  resembles  the  corre- 
sponding English  verb,  to  melt.  Hitzig  notes  this  among  the  indications  of 
a  later  WTiter,  notwithstanding  the  analogous  use  of  3VJ'  by  Amos  (ix.  14). 
In  the  hand  may  either  mean  by  means  of,  in  the  midst  of,  or  because  of; 
or  we  may  suppose  with  llopenmuller  that  the  phrase  strictly  means,  thou 
dost  melt  us  into  the  hand  of  our  iniquities,  t".  c.  subject  us  to  them,  make 
us  unable  to  resist  them,  and  passively  submissive  to  their  power. 

7.  And  1WW,  Jehovah,  our  father  {art)  thou,  ue  the  ihnj  and  thou  our  potter, 
and  the  work  of  thy  hand  (are)  we  all.  Instead  of  relying  upon  any  sup- 
posed merits  of  their  own,  they  appeal  to  their  very  dependence  upon  God 
as  a  reason  why  he  should  have  mercy  on  them.  Lowth  follows  two  edi- 
tions and  five  manuscripts  in  reading  nriN  twice,  which  repetition  has  great 
force,  he  thinks,  whereas  the  other  word  may  well  be  spared.  In  other  cases 
where  a  word  is  repeated  in  the  common  text,  he  substitutes  a  diflerent  one, 
because  the  repetition  is  inelegant.  The  Bishop's  judgment  upon  such 
points  was  continually  wai'ped  by  his  predominant  desire  to  chiuage  the  text. 
He  overlooked  in  this  case  the  obnous  use  of  now,  not  merely  as  a  particle 
of  time,  but  as  a  formula  of  logical  resumption,  which  could  not  be  omitted 
without  obscuring  the  relation  of  this  verse  to  the  preceding  context,  as  a 
Bumming  up  of  its  appeals  and  arguments.  Yitringa  regards  nriN  as  the 
origin  of  the  Homeric  arra,  rirra ;  but  the  Hebrew  word  is  not  expressive 
of  endearment,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  sense.  The  Prophet  hero 
resumes  the  thought  of  chap.  Ixiii.  10,  where,  as  here,  the  paternity  ascribed 
to  God  is  not  that  of  natural  creation  in  the  case  of  individuals,  but  the 
creation  of  the  church  or  chosen  people,  and  of  Israel  ns  a  spiritual  and 
ideal  person.  The  figure  of  the  potter  and  the  clay,  implying  absolute 
authority  and  power,  is  used  twice  before  (chap.  sxix.  0,  xlv.  9),  and  is 
one  of  the  connecting  links  between  this  book  and  the  acknowledged  Isaiah, 
— There  is  more  dignity  in  the  original  expression  than  in  the  English 
phrase  our  potter,  as  the  Hebrew  word  properly  denotes  one  forming  or 
imparting  shape  to  anything,  though  specially  applied  in  usage  to  a  work- 
man in  clay,  when  that  material  is  mentioned.  Lowth  retains  the  general 
meaning,  but  in  order  to  avoid  the  ambiguity  attending  the  word  former, 
treats  it  as  a  finite  verb,  thou  hast  formed  us,  whicli  is  clear  enough,  but 
inexact  and  drawling.  The  use  of  the  word  all  in  this  verse,  and  its  em- 
phatic repetition  in  the  next,  exclude  the  application  of  the  passage  to  an 
idolatrous  party  in  the  liabylonish  exile,  even  if  that  limitation  would  bo 
otherwise  admissilde.  The  same  plea,  derived  from  the  relation  of  the 
creature  to  the  maker,  is  used  in  Ps.  cxxxviii.  8,/nw«Ar  not  the  work  of  thy 
hands.  (Compare  Ps.  Ixxvi.  1,  Ixxix.  1).  In  either  case  there  is  a  tacit 
appeal  to  the  covenant  and  promise  in  Gen.  xvii.  7  ;  Lev.  xxvi.  42-45  ; 
Deut.  vii.  G,  xxvi.  17,  18. 

8.  Be  not  anyry,  0  Jehorah,  to  extremity,  and  do  not  to  eternity  remember 
guilt ;  lo,  look,  ue  pray  thee,  thy  people  (are)  tee  all.  Tliis  is  the  ni>])li(a- 
tion  of  the  argument  presented  in  the  foregoing  verse,  the  actual  prayer 
founded  on  the  fact  there  stated.  The  common  version  of  HNP'^jy  (»•<  n/ 
sore)  fails  to  reproduce  the  form  of  the  original  expression,  as  consisting  of 
a  preposition  and  a  noun.  This  is  faithfully  conveyed  in  Lowth's  version 
[to  the  uttcnnost),  and  still  more  in  Henderson's  (to  ejcess)  ;  although  the 
latter  is  objectionable  as  supgt  sting  the  idea  of  injustice  or  moral  wrong, 
which   is  avoided  in  the  version  above  given.     The  first  defect  is  also 


Ver.  9,  10.]  ISAIAH  LXIV.  435 

chargeable  upon  the  common  version  of  "IPP,  for  ever ;  whicb,  although  a 
fair  e(]nivalent,  and  pcrfoctly  sufficient  in  all  ordinary  cases,  is  neither  so 
exact  nor  so  expressive  as  the  literal  translation  in  the  case  before  us, 
where  there  seems  to  be  an  intentional  regard  to  the  peculiar  form  and 
sound  as  well  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  sentence.  The  common  version  is 
besides  defective,  or  at  least  ambiguous,  in  seeming  to  make  ID  a  verb  and 
N3  a  particle  of  time  ;  whereas  the  former  is  an  interjection,  and  the  latter 
the  peculiar  Hebrew  fonnula  of  courteous  or  importunate  entreaty. 

9.  2'hj  holy  cities  are  a  desert,  Zion  is  a  desert,  Jerusalem  a  waste.  By 
holy  cities,  Grotius  understands  the  towns  of  Judah  ;  Vitringa,  Jerusalem 
alone,  considered  as  consisting  of  two  towns,  the  upper  and  the  lower,  here 
called  Zion  and  Jerusalem,  though  each  of  these  names  sometimes  compre- 
hends the  whole,  and  the  latter  is  dual  in  its  verj'  form.  Gesenius  cites 
Ps.  Ixxviii.  54,  to  shew  that  even  the  frontier  of  the  land  was  reckoned 
holy,  and  that  its  cities  might  be  naturally  so  described  likewise.     But  the 

■question  is  not  one  of  possibility  or  propriety,  but  of  actual  usage;  not 
what  they  might  be  called,  but  what  they  are  called.  The  passage  in  the 
Psalms,  moreover,  is  itself  too  doubtful  to  throw  light  upon  the  one  before 
us.  A  better  argument  is  that  of  Hitzig,  in  his  note  on  chap.  Ixiii.  18, 
drawn  from  the  use  of  the  phrase  5^"Ip  JIDIX  by  Zeehariah  (ii.  16),  in  ap- 
plication to  the  whole.  Even  this,  however,  is  not  conclusive ;  since  the 
writer,  if  he  had  intended  to  employ  the  terms  in  this  wide  sense,  would 
hardly  have  confined  his  specifications  in  the  other  clause  to  Zion  and 
Jerusalem.  In  any  case,  these  must  'be  regarded  as  the  chief  if  not  the 
only  subjects  of  his  proposition. — There  is  something  worthy  of  attention 
in  the  use  here  made  of  the  substantive  verb  n\T.  To  express  mere  pre- 
sent existence,  Hebrew^  usage  employs  no  verb  at  all,  though  the  pronoun 
which  would  be  its  subject  is  occasionally  introduced.  The  preterite  form 
of  the  verb  as  here  used  must  either  have  the  sense  of  xvas,  in  reference  to 
a  definite  time  past,  or  has  been,  implying  a  continuation  of  the  same  state 
till  the  present.  The  foiincr  meaning  is  excluded,  and  the  latter  rendered 
necessary,  by  the  obvious  allusions  in  the  context  to  the  evils  mentioned  as 
being  still  experienced.  To  express  the  idea  has  become,  which  is  given  iu 
some  versions,  usage  would  require  the  verb  to  be  connected  with  the  noun 

by  the  preposition  A  On  the  whole,  the  true  sense  of  the  verse,  expressed 
or  implied,  appears  to  be  that  Zion  has  long  been  a  desolation  and  Jeru- 
salem a  waste. 

10.  Our  house  of  holiness  and  heauty  {in)  ichich  our  fathers  praised  thee 
has  been  burned  up  icith  fire,  and  all  our  delights  (or  desirable  places)  have 
become  a  desolation.  The  elliptical  use  of  the  relative  in  reference  to  place 
is  the  same  as  in  Gen.  xxxix.  20.  Burned  tip,  literally,  become  a  burning 
of  fire,  as  in  chap.  ix.  G.  The  reference  in  this  verse  is  of  course  to  the 
destruction  of  the  temple,  but  to  which  destruction  is  disputed.  The  modem 
Gennans  all  refer  it  to  the  Babylonian  conquest,  when  the  temple,  as  we  are 
expressly  told,  was  burnt  (Jer.  lii.  13)  ;  Grotius  to  its  profanation  by 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  at  which  time,  however,  it  was  not  consumed  by 
fire ;  Yitringa  and  many  later  writers,  with  the  Jews  themselves,  to  its 
destruction  by  the  Romans,  since  which  the  city  and  the  land  have  lain 
desolate.  To  the  first  and  last  of  these  events  the  words  are  equally  ap- 
propriate. Either  hypothesis  being  once  assumed,  the  particular  expres- 
sions admit  of  being  easily  adapted  to  it.  With  our  own  hypothesis  the 
passage  may  be  reconciled  in  several  difi"erent  ways.  There  is  nothing, 
however,  in  the  terms  themselves,  or  in  the  analogy  of  prophetic  language, 


486  ISAIAH  LXV.  [Veb.  1. 

to  forbid  our  nnderstandinf;  this  as  a  description  of  the  desolations  of  the 
church  itself  expressed  by  figures  borrowed  from  the  old  ccouonjy,  and  from 
the  aucieut  history  of  Israel.  If  literally  understood,  the  destruction  of 
the  temple  and  the  holy  city  may  be  here  lamented  as  a  loss  not  merely  to 
the  Jewish  nation,  but  to  the  chnrch  of  God  to  which  they  rij^'htfully  belong 
and  by  which  they  ought  yet  to  be  recovered,  a  sense  of  which  obligation 
blended  with  some  superstitious  eiTors  gave  occasion  to  the  fanatical  attempt 
of  the  Crusades,     (See  above,  on  chap.  Ixiii.  18.) 

12.  Wilt  thou  for  these  Jhingx)  restrain  thyself,  0  Jehorah,  irilt  thou  keep 
silence  and  afflict  tis  to  extremity  f  This  is  simply  another  application  of 
the  argument  by  way  of  an  importunate  appeal  to  the  divine  compassions. 
Self-restraint  and  silence,  as  applied  to  God,  are  common  figures  for  in- 
action and  apparent  indifl'erence  to  the  interests,  and  especially  the  suflerings, 
of  his  people.  (See  above,  on  chap.  xlii.  14,  and  Ixiii.  15.)  The  question 
is  not  whether  God  will  remain  silent  in  spite  of  what  his  people  suffered, 
but  whether  the  loss  of  their  external  advantages  will  induce  him  to  forsake 
them.  The  question  as  in  many  other  cases  impHes  a  negation  of  the 
strongest  kind.  The  destraction  of  the  old  theocracy  was  God's  own  act, 
and  was  designed  to  bring  the  church  under  a  new  and  far  more  glorious 
dispensation.  How  the  loss  of  a  national  organisation  and  pre-eminence 
was  to  be  made  good  is  fully  stated  in  the  following  chapter. 


CHAPTER   LXV. 

The  great  enigma  of  Israel's  simultaneous  loss  and  gain  is  solved  by  a 
prediction  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  ver.  1.  This  is  connected  with 
the  obstinate  unfaithfulness  of  the  chosen  people,  ver.  2.  They  are  repre- 
sente'd  under  the  two  main  aspects  of  their  character  at  different  periods, 
as  gross  idolaters  and  as  pharisaical  bigots,  vers.  8-5.  Their  casting  off 
was  not  occasioned  by  the  sins  of  one  generation,  but  of  many,  vers.  G,  7. 
But  even  in  this  rejected  race  there  was  a  chosen  remnant,  in  whom  the 
promises  shall  be  fulfilled,  vers.  8-10.  He  then  reverts  to  the  idolatrous 
Jews,  and  threatens  them  with  condign  punishment,  vers.  11,  12.  The 
fate  of  the  unbelieving  carnal  Israel  is  compared  with  that  of  the  true 
spiritual  Israel,  vers.  13-16.  The  gospel  economy  is  described  as  a  new 
creation,  ver.  17.  Its  blessings  are  represented  under  glowing  figures  bor- 
rowed from  the  old  dispensation,  vers.  18,  19.  Premature  death  shall  bo 
no  longer  known,  ver.  20.  Possession  and  enjoyment  shall  no  longer  be 
precarious,  vers.  21-28.  Their  verj-  desires  shall  be  anticipated,  ver.  24. 
All  animosities  and  noxious  influences  shall  cease  for  ever,  ver.  25. 

1.  I  hare  been  inquired  of  hy  those  that  asked  not,  I  hate  been  found  by 
those  that  sought  me  not,  I  hare  said,  Jlehold  me,  behold  me,  to  a  nation  {that) 
was  not  called  by  my  name.  There  is  an  apparent  inconsistency  between 
the  first  two  members  of  the  sentence  in  the  English  Version,  arising  from 
the  use  of  the  same  verb  {soiirjht),  to  express  two  very  ditferent  Hebrew 
verbs,  t'ipg  is  hero  used  in  the  general  sense  of  seekiwi  or  trying  to  ob- 
tain, tni  in  the  technical  religious  sense  of  ron-^ultinij  as  an  oracle.  In 
the  latter  case,  the  dilliculty  of  translation  is  enhanced  by  the  peculiar  form 
of  the  original,  not  simply  passive,  but  reflexive,  and  capable  of  being  ren- 
dered in  our  idiom  only  by  periphrasis.  The  exact  sense  seems  to  be,  I 
allowed  myself  to  be  consulted,  I  afforded  access  to  myself  for  the  purjiose 
of  consultation.     This  is  not  a  mere  conjectural  deduction  from  the  form 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAH  LXV.  -137 

of  the  Hebrew  verb  or  from  general  analogy,  but  a  simple  statement  of  the 
actual  usage  of  this  very  word,  as  when  Jehovah  says  again  and  again  of 
the  ungodly  exiles  that  he  will  not  be  inquired  of  or  consulted  by  them  (Ezek. 
xiv.  3,  XX.  3),  i.  e.  with  effect  or  to  any  useful  purpose.  In  this  connection 
it  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  he  will  not  hear  them,  answer  them,  or 
reveal  himself  to  them  ;  all  which  or  equivalent  expressions  have  been  used 
by  different  writers  in  the  translation  of  the  verse  before  us.  There  is 
nothing  therefore  incorrect  in  substance,  though  the  form  be  singular,  in  the 
Septuagint  version  of  this  verb,  retained  in  the  New  Testament,  viz.  i/M:pavrig 
h/ivrjdrjv,  I  became  manifest,  i.  e.  revealed  myself.  The  object  of  the  verb 
asked,  if  exact  uniformity  be  deemed  essential,  may  be  readily  supplied 
from  the  parallel  expression  sought  me. — Behold  me,  or,  as  it  is  sometimes 
rendered  in  the  English  Bible,  here  lam,  is  the  usual  idiomatic  Hebrew 
answer  to  a  call  by  name,  and  when  ascribed  to  God,  contains  an  assurance 
of  his  presence,  rendered  more  emphatic  by  the  repetition.  (See  above,  chap, 
lii.  0,  Iviii.  9.)  It  is  therefore  equivalent  to  being  inquired  of,  and  being 
found.  This  last  expression  has  occurred  before  in  chap.  Iv.  6,  and,  as  here, 
in  combination  with  the  verb  to  seek.  A  people  not  called  by  my  name,  i.e. 
not  recognised  or  known  as  my  people.  (See  above,  chap,  xlviii.  2.)  All  in- 
terpreters agree  that  this  is  a  direct  continuation  of  the  foregoing  context, 
suid  most  of  them  regard  it  as  the  answer  of  Jehovah  to  the  expostulations 
and  petitions  there  presented  by  his  people.  The  modern  Germans  and  the 
Jews  apply  both  this  verse  and  the  next  to  Israel.  The  obvious  objection 
is,  that  Israel  even  in  its  worst  estate  could  never  be  described  as  a  nation 
which  had  not  been  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah.  Jarchi's  solution  of 
this  difficulty,  namely,  that  they  treated  him  as  if  they  were  not  called  by 
his  name,  is  an  evasion,  tending  to  destroy  the  force  of  language,  and  con- 
found all  its  distinctions.  It  is  a  standing  characteristic  of  the  Jews  in  the 
Old  Testament,  that  they  were  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah ;  but  if  they 
may  also  be  described  in  terms  directly  opposite,  whenever  the  interpreter  pre- 
fers it,  then  may  anything  mean  anything.  With  equal  right  may  we  allege 
that  the  seed  of  Abraham  in  chap.  xli.  8  means  those  who  act  as  if  they  were 
his  seed,  and  that  the  nation  who  had  never  Icnown  Messiah  (chap.  Iv.  5) 
means  a  nation  that  might  just  as  well  have  never  known  him.  On  the 
other  hand,  Ivimchi's  explanation  of  the  clause  as  meaning  that  they  were 
imwilling  to  be  called  his  people,  is  as  much  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  his- 
tory as  Jarchi's  with  the  principles  of  language.  In  all  their  alienations, 
exiles,  and  dispersions,  the  children  of  Israel  have  still  retained  that  title  as 
their  highest  glory  and  the  badge  of  all  their  tribes.  The  incongruity  of 
this  interpretation  of  the  first  verse  is  admitted  by  Rabbi  Moshe  Haccohen 
among  the  Jews,  and  by  Hendewerk  among  the  Germans,  the  last  of  whom 
pronounces  it  impossible,  and  therefore  understands  the  passage  as  applying 
to  the  Persians  under  Cyrus,  who,  without  any  previous  relation  to  Jehovah, 
bad  been  publicly  and  honourably  called  into  his  service.  A  far  more 
obvious  and  natural  application  may  be  made  to  the  Gentiles  generally, 
whose  vocation  is  repeatedly  predicted  in  this  book,  and  might  be  here  used 
with  powerful  effect  in  proof  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  the  result  of 
their  own  obstinate  perverseness,  not  of  God's  imfaithfulness  or  want  of 
power.  This  is  precisely  Paul's  interpretation  of  the  passage  in  llom. 
ix.  20,  21,  where  he  does  not,  as  in  many  other  cases,  merely  borrow  the 
expressions  of  the  Prophet,  but  formally  interprets  them,  applying  this 
verse  to  the  Gentiles,  and  then  adding,  "  but  to  Israel  (or  of  Israel)  he 
saith"  what  follows  in  the  next  verse.     The  same  intention  to  expound  the 


438  ISAIAH  LXV.  [Ver.  2,  3. 

Prophet's  langnnge  is  clear  from  the  Apostle's  mention  of  Isaiah's  boldDCss 
in  thus  shocking  the  most  cherished  prepossessions  of  the  Jews.  Grotius 
takes  no  notice  of  this  apostolic  interpretation,  but  applies  both  verses  to 
the  Jews  in  Babylon,  although  Alarbenel  himself  had  been  constrained  to 
abandon  it,  and  understand  the  pass:igu  as  referring  to  the  Jews  m  Kgypt. 
Gesenins  merely  pleads  for  the  reference  to  Babylon  as  c<|ually  admissible 
with  that  which  Paul  makes,  and  as  better  suited  to  the  context  in  Isaiah. 
Hit/.ig  as  usual  goes  further,  and  declares  it  to  be  evident  (offenhar)  that 
the  words  relate  only  to  the  Jews  as  alienated  from  Jehovah.  This  con- 
tempt for  Paul's  authority  is  less  surprising  in  a  writer  who  describes 
Jehovah's  answer  to  the  expostulations  of  the  people  as  moving  in  a  circle, 
and  pronounces  both  incompetent  to  solve  the  cpiestion,  why  Jehovah  should 
entice  men  into  sin  and  then  punish  tliem.  Instead  of  f<7?  I-'O^^th  reads 
f<^(5  (never  invoked  my  name)  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  (fxa/.fffav). 
The  last  clause  is  not  included  in  Paul's  quotation. 

2.  /  have  upread  (or  stretched)  out  my  hands  all  th-e  day  (or  every  day)  to  a 
rehelliotis  people,  those  going  the  way  not'  good,  after  their  oirn  thoughtu  [or 
designs).  The  gesture  mentioned  in  the  first  clause  is  variously  explained 
as  a  gesture  of  simple  calling,  of  instruction,  of  invitation,  of  persuasion. 
According  to  Hitzig  it  is  an  oll'er  of  help  on  God's  part,  corresponding  to 
the  same  act  as  a  prayer  for  help  on  man's.  (See  chap.  i.  15.)  All  agree 
that  it  implies  a  gi-acious  otfer  of  himself  and  of  his  favour  to  the  people. 
Whether  all  the  dag  or  nrry  dag  be  the  correct  translation,  the  idea  meant 
to  bo  conveyed  is  evidently  that  of  frequent  repetition,  or  rather  of  unre- 
mitting coriStancy.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing,  with  Vitringa  and  others, 
that  it  specifically  signifies  the  period  of  the  old  dispensation.  The  rebel- 
lious people  is  admitted  upon  all  hands  to  be  Israel.  The  last  clause  is  an 
amplification  and  explanatory  paraphrase  of  the  first.  Going  and  tvay  are 
common  figures  for  the  course  of  life.  A  way  not  good,  is  a  litotes  or 
mciosis  for  a  bad  or  for  the  worst  way.  (See  Ps.  xxxvi.  5,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  81. 
Thoughts,  not  opinions  merely,  but  devices  and  inventions  of  wickedness. 
(See  above,  on  chap.  Iv.  7.)  With  this  description  compare  that  of  Moses,. 
Dent,  xxxii.  5,  6. 

."J.  The  people  angering  me  to  my  face  continually,  mcrificing  in  the  yard ftu, 
and  censing  on  the  hricks.  We  have  now  a  more  detailed  description  of  the 
tray  not  good,  and  the  devices  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse.  The  con- 
stniction  is  continued,  the  people  provoking  me,  &c.,  being  in  direct  apposi- 
tion with  the  rebellious  people  going,  &c.  To  my  face,  not  secretly  or 
timidly  (Jcib  xxxi.  27).  but  openly  and  in  defiance  of  me  (chap.  iii.  0,  Job 
i.  11),  which  is  jirobably  the  meaning  of  before  mc  in  the  first  command- 
ment (Kxod.  XX.  8).  Animal  ofierings  and  fumigations  are  combined  to 
represent  all  kinds  of  sacrifice.  As  to  the  idolatrous  use  of  groves  and 
gardens,  sec  above,  on  chap.  hii.  5,  vol.  i.  p.  94.  Vitringa's  distinction 
between  groves  and  gardens  is  gratuitous,  the  Hebrew  word  denoting  any 
enclosed  and  carefully  cultivated  gi-ouud,  whether  chiefly  occupied  by  trees 
or  not.  Of  the  last  words,  on  the  bricks,  there  are  four  interpretations. 
The  first  is  that  of  many  older  writers,  who  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  pro- 
hibition in  Kxod.  XX.  21,  25.  But  bricks  are  not  there  mentioned,  and 
can  hnnlly  come  umbr  the  description  of  "  hewn  stone,"  besides  the  doubt 
which  overhangs  the  application  of  that  law,  and  especially  the  cases  in  which 
it  was  meant  to  operate.  This  evil  is  not  remedied  but  rather  aggravated, 
by  supposing  an  additional  allusion  to  Lev.  xxvi.  1.  and  Num.  xxxiii.  52, 
as  Grotius  does,  and  understanding  by  ihc  bricks  such  as  were  iniprefised  with 


Ver.  4.j  ISAIAH  LXV.  430 

unlawful  flocoratinns  or  inscriptions.  A  second  h^'pothesi3  is  that  of 
Bochart,  who  supposes  bricks  to  mean  roofing-tiles  (Mark  ii.  4,  Luke  v.  19), 
and  the  phrase  to  be  descriptive  of  idolatry  as  practised  on  the  roofs  of 
houses.  (2  Kings  xxiii.  12,  Jcr.  xix.  l!3,  xxxii.  29,  Zcph.  i.  5.)  Ewald 
approves  of  this  interpretation,  and,  to  make  the  parallelism  perfect, 
changes  ni33,  gardens,  to  r\]ii^  roofs.  Vitringa's  objection  to  this  reading, 
drawn  from  the  analogy  of  chap.  i.  29,  and  Ivi.  17,  is  converted  by  Ewald  into 
a  reason  for  it,  by  supposing  the  common  text  to  have  arisen  from  assimila- 
tion. An  objection  not  so  easily  disposed  of  is  the  one  alleged  by  Kuobol, 
namely,  that  Hebrew  usage  would  require  adilierent  preposition  before  ri1i:3. 
A  third  hypothesis  is  that  of  liosenmiiller,  who  supposes  an  allusion  to 
some  practice  now  unknown,  but  possibly  connected  with  the  curiously 
inscribed  bricks  found  in  modern  times  near  the  site  of  ancient  JJabylon. 
Gesenius  hesitates  between  this  and  a  fourth  interpretation,  much  the 
simplest  and  most  natural  of  all,  viz.,  that  the  phrase  means  nothmg  more 
than  altars,  or  at  most  altars  slightly  and  hastily  constructed.  Of  such 
altars  bricks  may  be  named  as  the  materials,  or  tiles  as  the  superficial 
covering. 

4.  Sitting  in  the  graves  and  in  the  holes  they  will  lodge,  eating  th^  flesh  of 
swine,  and  broth  of  flthg  things  {is  in)  their  vessels.  All  a-j^ree  that  tliis 
verse  is  intended  to  depict,  in  revolting  colours,  the  idolatrous  customs  of 
the  people.  Nor  is  there  much  doubt  as  to  the  construction  of  the  sentence, 
or  the  force  of  the  particular  expressions.  But  the  obscurity  which  over- 
hangs the  usage  referred  to  aSbrds  full  scope  to  the  archaeological  propen- 
sities of  modern  commentators,  some  of  whom  pass  by  in  silence  questions 
of  the  highest  excgctical  importance,  while  they  lavish  without  stint  or 
scrapie,  time  and  labour,  ingenuity  and  learning,  on  a  vain  attempt  to  settle 
questions  which  throw  no  light  on  the  drift  of  the  passage,  nor  even  on  the 
literal  translation  of  the  words,  but  are  investigated  merely  for  their  o^^^l 
sake  or  their  bearing  upon  other  objects,  so  that  Rosenmiiller  interrupts 
himself  in  one  of  those  antiquarian  in(piirie3  by  saying,  "  scd  redcamus  ad 
locum  vatis  in  quo  explicando  versamur."  Such  are  the  questions,  whether 
these  idolaters  sat  in  the  graves  or  among  them  ;  whether  for  necromantic 
purposes,  i.e.  to  interrogate  the  dead,  or  to  perform  sacrificial  rites  to  their 
memoiy,  or  to  obtain  demoniacal  inspiration ;  whether  DH-I^'?  means  monu- 
ments, or  caves,  or  temples ;  whether  they  were  lodged  in  for  licentious 
purposes,  or  to  obtain  prophetic  dreams ;  whether  they  are  charged  with 
siiuply  eating  pork,  for  food,  or  after  it  had  been  sacrificed  to  idols; 
whether  swine's  tlesh  was  forbidden  for  medicinal  reasons  or  because  the 
heathen  sacrificed  and  ate  it,  or  on  other  grounds ;  whether  P12  means 
broth  or  bits  of  meat,  and  if  the  former,  whether  it  was  so  called  on  account 
of  the  bread  broken  in  it,  or  for  other  reasons,  &c.  The  only  question  of 
granmiatieal  construction  which  has  found  a  place  among  these  topics  of 
l)edantic  disquisition,  is  as  such  entitled  to  consideration,  though  of  small 
importance  with  respect  to  the  interpretation  of  the  passage.  It  is  the 
question  whether  Driv3  ig  to  be  governed  by  a  preposition  understood 
(Rosenmiiller),  or  explained  as  an  accusative  of  place  (Gesenius),  or  as  the 
predicate  of  the  proposition,  broth  of  abominable  meats  are  their  vessels 
(Maurer).  This  last  construction  is  retained  by  Knobel,  but  he  changes 
the  whole  meaning  of  the  clause  by  explaining  the  last  word  to  mean  their 
instruments  or  i?>yi?e»(e7i/.s-,  and  giving  to  P"13  the  sense  of  bits  or  pieces  : 
"  pieces  of  abomhiable  meat  are  their  instruments  of  divination,"  in  allusion 
to  the  mantic  inspection  of  the  sacrificial  victims  by  the  heathen  priests  as 


UO  ISAIAH  LX I'.  i Vkr.  5. 

means  of  ascertaining  future  events.  Even  if  we  should  successively  adopt 
and  then  chscard  evorv  one  of  the  opinions,  somo  i)f  which  have  now  been 
mentioned,  the  essential  meaning  of  tlie  verse  would  still  remain  the  same, 
as  a  highly  wrought  description  of  idolatrous  abominations. 

5.  77ie  {men)  saying^  Keep  to  thijxelf,  come  not  near  to  me,  for  I  am  /loli/ 
to  thee,  these  {are)  a  smoke  in  nuj  wrath,  a  fire  burning  all  the  day  (or  every 
day).  Gesenius's  obscure  addition,  und  nocht  saijt,  is  faithfully  transcribed 
by  Noyes,  who  yet  say.  The  peculiar  phrase,  T7^  ^r")?,  is  analogous,  but  not 
precisely  equivalent  to  vHt'?  in  chaj).  xlix.  20.  (See  above,  p.  289.)  The 
literal  translation  is  ajqnouch  to  thyself;  and  as  this  implies  removal  from 
the  speaker,  the  essential  moaning  is  correctly  expressed,  though  hi 
a  very  dilierent  form  from  the  original,  both  by  the  Septuagint  (c&iiw  «'«■' 
i/jLoii)  and  by  the  Vulgate  {recede  a  vie).  The  common  English  version 
{stand  by  thyself),  and  Henderson's  improvement  of  it  {keep  by  thyself), 
both  suggest  an  idea  not  cpntained  in  the  original,  viz.  that  of  standing 
alone,  whereas  all  that  is  expressed  by  the  Hebrew  phrase  is  the  act  of 
standing  away  from  the  speaker,  for  which  Lowth  has  found  the  idiomatic 
equivalent  {keep  to  thyself).  Another  unusual  expression  is  'n*i!lV*'!'P,  which 
may  be  represented  by  the  English  words,  /  arn  holy  thee.  The  Targum 
resolves  this  into  100  ^nK'^p,  and  Vitringa  accordingly  assumes  an  actual 
ellipsis  of  the  preposition  IP  as  a  particle  of  comparison.  IJut  as  this 
ellipsis  is  extremely  rare,  De  Dieu  and  Cocceins  assume  that  of  /,  /  am 
holy  to  thee.  Gesenius  adopts  the  same  construction,  but  explains  the  1< 
as  a  mere  pleonasm,  and  translates  accordingly,  /  am  holy,  which  is  merely 
omitting  what  cannot  be  explained.  The  particle  no  doubt  expresses  general 
relation,  and  the  phrase  means,  7  am  holy  with  re.'^pect  to  thee;  and  as  this 
implies  comparison,  the  same  sense  is  attained  as  by  the  old  constniclion, 
but  in  a  manner  more  gi'ammatical  and  regular.  The  implied  comparison 
enables  us  to  reconcile  two  of  the  ancient  versions  as  alike  in  spirit,  although 
in  letter  flatl}-  contradicton*.  The  Septuagint  has  /  am  pure  (i.  e.  in  com- 
parison with  thee) ;  the  Vulgate,  Thou  art  impure  {i.  c.  in  comparison  with 
me).  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  rcsortiug  to  the  forced  explanation 
proposed  by  Thenius  in  a  German  periodical,  which  takes  '>?'^"?p,  in  the 
sense  of  separating,  one  which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  actual  usage,  and  is 
excluded  even  from  the  Etymon,  by  some  of  the  best  modern  lexicographers. 
Equally  gratuitous  is  Hit/.ig's  explanation  of  the  verb  (in  which  he  seems 
to  have  been  anticipated  by  Luther)  as  transitive,  and  meaning  test  I  hallow 
thee,  i.  e.  by  touching  thee,  a  notion  contradictorv'  to  that  expressed  in 
Haggai  ii,  12,  18,  and  aflbrding  no  good  sense  here,  as  the  fear  of  making 
others  holy,  whether  as  an  inconvenience  or  a  benefit,  would  hardly  have 
been  used  to  characterise  the  men  described.  As  to  the  question,  "Who  are 
here  described  ?  there  are  two  main  opinions  :  first,  that  the  clause  relates 
to  the  idolaters  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verses  ;  the  other,  that  it  is  de- 
scriptive of  a  wluilly  different  chiss.  On  the  first  supposition,  Gesenius 
imagines  that  Jewish  converts  to  the  Parsce  religion  are  described  as  look- 
ing at  their  former  brethren  with  contempt.  On  the  other,  Henderson 
assumes  that  the  Pro{)het,  having  first  described  the  idolatrous  form  of 
Jewish  apostasy,  as  it  existed  in  his  own  day  and  long  after,  then  describes  the 
j)harisaical  form  of  the  same  evil,  as  it  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ,  both 
being  put  together  as  the  cause  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews.  To  any 
specific  aj)plication  of  the  passage  to  the  Babylonish  exile,  it  may  be  ob- 
jected that  the  practice  of  idolatry  at  that  time  by  the  Jews  can  only  be 
established  by  a  begging  of  the  question  in  expounding  this  and  certain 


Ver.  6,  7.]  ISAIAH  LXr.  441 

parallel  passages.  The  other  explauation  is  substantially  the  true  oue. 
The  groat  end  which  the  Propliet  had  in  view  was  to  describe  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  as  abominable  in  the  sight  of  God.  His  manner  of  expressing 
this  idea  is  poetical,  by  means  of  figures  drawn  from  various  periods  of  their 
history,  without  intending  to  exhibit  either  of  these  periods  exclusively.  To 
a  Hebrew  writer  what  could  be  more  natural  than  to  express  the  idea  of 
religious  corruption  by  describing  its  subjects  as  idolaters,  diviners,  eaters 
of  swine's  flesh,  worshippers  of  outward  forms,  and  self-righteous  hypocrites*? 
Of  such  the  text  declares  God's  abhorrence.  Smoke  and  fire  may  be  taken 
as  natural  concomitants  and  parallel  ligures,  as  if  he  had  said,  against  whom 
my  wrath  smokes  and  burns  continually.  Or  the  smoke  may  represent  the 
utter  consumption  of  the  object,  and  the  tire  the  means  by  which  it  is 
eliected,  which  appears  to  have  been  Luther"s  idea.  That  ^1^?  in  such  con- 
nections does  not  mean  the  nose,  but  wrath  itself,  has  been  shewn  in  the 
exposition  of  chap,  xlviii.  9.     (See  above,  p.  215.) 

G,  7.  Lo,  it  is  written  before  me.  I  will  not  rest  except  I  repay,  and  I 
tvill  repay  into  their  bosom  your  iniquities  and  the  iniquities  of  your  fathers 
toyether,  saith  Jehovah,  who  burned  incense  on  the  mountains,  and  on  the 
hills  blasphemed  me,  and  I  ivill  measure  their  first  work  into  their  bosom. 
The  particle  at  the  beginning  calls  attention  both  to  the  magnitude  and 
certainty  of  the  event  about  to  be  predicted. — Lovvth,  for  some  reason  un- 
explained, thinks  proper  to  translate  HZlin?  is  recorded  in  ivritimj,  which  is 
abridged  by  Noyes  to  stands  recorded,  and  still  more  by  Henderson  to  is 
recorded.  One  step  further  in  the  same  dii'ection  brings  us  back  to  the 
simple  and  perfectly  sufficient  version  of  the  English  Bible,  it  is  xvritten. 
This  may  serve  as  an  instructive  sample  of  the  way  in  which  the  later 
English  versions  sometimes  imjjrove  upon  the  old.  The  figure  which  these 
verbs  express  is  variously  understood  by  dilierent  writers.  Umbrcit  seems 
to  think  that  what  is  said  to  be  written  is  the  eternal  law  of  retribution. 
Hitzig  and  Knobel  understand  by  it  a  booh  of  remembrance  (Mai.  iii.  10), 
i.e.  a  record  of  the  sins  referred  to  afterwards,  by  which  they  are  kept  per- 
petually present  to  the  memory  of  Jehovah  (Daniel  vii.  10).  Vitringa  and 
most  later  writers  understand  by  it  a  record,  not  of  crime,  but  of  its  punish- 
ment, or  rather  of  the  purpose  or  decree  to  punish  it  (Daniel  v.  5.  21),  in 
reference  to  the  written  judgments  of  the  ancient  courts  (chap.  x.  1). ;  This 
last  interpretation  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  supposition  that  the  thing 
here  said  to  be  written  is  the  threatening  which  immediatel}'  follows,  although 
this  is  by  no  means  an  unnatural  construction. — /  will  not  rest  or  be  silent, 
an  expression  used  repeatedly  before  in  reference  to  the  seeming  inaction  or 
inditference  of  Jehovah.  (See  above,  chaps,  xlii.  11,  Ivii.  11  ;  and  com- 
pare Ps.  1.  21,  Hab.  i.  IB.) — Gesenius  and  De  Wette  follow  the  older  writers 
in  translating,  1  will  not  keep  silence,  hut  loill  recompense.  But  although  "'? 
0^5,  like  the  German  son(/e?-n,  is  the  usual  adversative  after  a  negation,  this 
construction  of  the  preterite  ''^Pi'r'  would  be  contrary  to  usage,  and  Q^^  *? 
must  be  construed,  as  it  usually  is,  before  the  preterite,  as  meaning  unless 
or  until,  in  which  sense  it  is  accurately  rendered  both  by  Hitzig  {bis)  and 
Ewald  [ausser).  See  above,  on  chap.  Iv.  10,  where  this  same  construction 
is  gratuitously  set  aside  by  Hitzig  on  the  ground  that  it  would  argue  too 
miich  knowledge  of  natural  philosophy  in  a  Hebrew  writer.  (Compare  also 
2  Sam.  i.  18.) — For  repay  into  their  bosom,  we  have  in  the  seventh  verse 
measure  into  their  bosom,  which  afl'ords  a  clue  to  the  origin  and  real  mean- 
ing of  the  figure;  as  we  read  that  Boaz  said  to  Ruth,  "  Bring  the  veil  (or 
cloak)  that  is  upon  thee  and  hold  it,  and  she  held  it,  and  he  measured 


442  ISAIAH  LXV.  [Yer.  C,  7. 

six  (measures  of)  barley,  an  J  laid  it  on  ha*"  (Ruth  iii.  15).  Hence  the 
phrase  to  measure  into  any  one's  bosom,  i.  e.  into  the  lap,  or  the  fold  of 
the  garment  covering  the  bosom  (See  above,  on  chap.  xlix.  22).  The 
same  figure  is  employed  by  Jer.  xxxii.  1ft,  and  in  Ps.  Ixxix.  12,  and  is 
explained  by  Kosenmiiller  in  his  Scholia  on  the  latter,  and  by  Winer  in  his 
Lexicon,  as  implying  abundance,  or  a  greater  quantity  than  one  could 
carry  in  the  hand.  (C(jmpare  Luke  vi.  38.)  But  Gesenius  and  Maurer 
understand  the  main  idea  to  be  not  that  of  abundance,  but  of  retribution, 
an^'thing, being  said  to  return  into  one's  own  bosom,  just  as  it  is  elsewhere 
said  to  return  upon  his  own  head  (Judges  ix.  57,  Ps.  vii.  17).  Both  these 
accessory  ideas  are  appropriate  in  the  case  before  us.  In  Jer.  xxxii.  18, 
and  Ps.  L^xix.  12,  the  preposition  7^  is  used,  and  the  same  form  is  also 
found  here  in  some  manuscripts,  and  even  in  the  Masora  upon  the  next 
verse,  though  the  ^y  is  no  more  likely  to  be  wrong  there  than  here,  nor 
at  all,  according  to  Maurer,  who  explains  it  as  denoting  motion  towards  an 
object  from  above.  The  sudden  change  from  their  to  your  at  the  beginning 
of  ver.  7,  has  been  commonly  explained  as  an  example  ot  the  cnnllage 
persona;  so  frequently  occurring  in  Isaiah.  This  supiiosition  is  undoubtedly 
sufficient  to  remove  all  difficulty  from  the  syntax.  It  is  possible,  however, 
that  the  change  is  not  a  mere  grammatical  anomaly  or  licence  of  construc- 
tion, but  significant,  and  intended  to  distinguish  between  three  generations. 
I  will  repay  into  their  bosom  (that  of  your  descendants)  your  iniquities, 
and  the  iniquities  of  your  fathers.  If  this  be  not  a  fanciful  distinction,  it 
gives  colour  to  Henderson's  opinion  that  the  previous  description  brings  to 
view  successively  the  gross  idolatry  of  early  times,  and  the  pharisaical 
hypocrisy  prevailing  at  the  time  of  Christ.  Supposing  his  contemporaries 
to  be  the  immediate  objects  of  address,  there  would  then  be  a  distinct 
allusion  to  their  idolatrous  progenitors,  the  measure  of  whose  guilt  they 
filled  up  (Mat.  xxiii.  ;-}2),  and  to  their  children,  upon  whom  it  was  to  be 
conspicuously  visited  (Luke  xxiv.  28).  But  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the 
meaning  of  the  text  is  obvious,  as  teaching  that  the  guilt  which  had 
accumulated  through  successive  generations  should  be  visited,  though  not 
exclusively,  upon  the  last.  The  whole  of  idolatry  is  here  summed  up  in 
huniinij  incense  on  the  niountitins,  which  are  elsewhere  mentioned  as  a 
favourite  resort  of  those  who  worshipped  idols  (chap.  Ivii.  7,  Jer.  iii.  0, 
E/,ek.  vi.  13,  xviii.  G,  Hosea  iv.  13),  and  bhisphemintf  God  upon  the  hills, 
which  may  either  be  regarded  as  a  metaphorical  description  of  idolatrv* 
itself,  or  stricth*  taken  to  denote  the  oral  expression  of  contempt  for 
Jehovah  and  his  worship,  which  might  naturally  be  expected  to  accompany 
such  practices. — There  is  some  obscurity  in  the  word  np^'KT  as  here  used. 
Ewald  takes  it  as  an  adverb,  meaning  first,  or  at  first  (zuerst),  and  nppears 
to  understand  the  clause  as  meaning,  their  reward  (that  of  your  fathers) 
will  I  measure  first  into  their  hosoyn.  But  this  does  not  seem  to  agree  with 
the  previous  declaration  that  the  sons  should  sutVer  for  the  fathers'  guilt 
and  for  their  own  together.  At  the  same  time  the  construction  is  less 
natural  and  obvious  than  that  of  Gesenius  and  other  writers,  who  make 
nyj'ST  an  adjective  agreeing  with  •^^'V?,  their  fanner  iruric,  t.  e.  its  product 
or  reward,  as  in  chap.  xl.  10.  (See  above,  p.  100.)  The  only  sense  in 
which  it  can  be  thus  described  is  that  of  ancient,  as  distinguished,  not 
from  the  subsequent  transgi-essions  of  the  fathers,  but  from  those  of  the 
children  who  came  after  them. — According  to  the  sense  which  the  apostle 
puts  upon  the  two  first  verses  of  this  chapter,  we  may  understand  those 
now  before  us  as  predicting  the  excision  of  the  Jews  from  the  communion 


Ver.  8,  9.] 


ISAIAH  LXV.  443 


of  the  church,  and  from  their  covenant  relation  to  Jehovah,  a.s  a  testiniony 
of  his  sore  displeasure  on  account  of  the  unfaithfulness  _  and  manifold 
trans<n-essions  of  that  chosen  race  throughout  its  former  history,  but  also 
on  ac'count  of  the  obstinate  and  spiteful  unbelief  with  which  so  many  later 
generations  have  rejected  the  Messiah  for  whose  sake  alone  they  ever  had 
a  national  existence,  and  enjoyed  so  many  national  advantages. 

8.   T//M.S-  saith  Jehovah,  as  {luhm)  juice  is  found  in  the  cluster,  and  one 
sous    Destroy  it  not,  for  a  hU^siiuj  is  in  it,  so  will  I  do  for  the  sake  of  my 
servants,  not  to  destroy  the  ivhole.     Gesenius  objects  to  the  translation  of 
■i::'X3,  as  if,  or  as  when,   in  the  Vulgate  and  many  other  versions,  on  the 
ground  that,  though  "1^:^:  is  sometimes  elhptically  used  for  when,  the  com- 
pound particle  never  denotes  as  when.     He  therefore  gives  it  the  conditional 
sense  of  if  or  when,  as  in  Gen.  xxvii.  40,  and  takes  1  as  in  that  case  for  the 
sign  of  the  apodosis,  "  ichen  (or  if)  juice  is  found  in  the  cluster,  f^^o^onQ 
says,"  &c.     But  most  interpreters  consider  it  more  natural  to  make  W?. 
and  i?  correlatives,  as  usual  in  cases  of  comparison,  equivalent  to  as  and  so 
in  Endish.     We  may  then  either  supply  tvlten  as  Maurcr  does,  or  translate 
it  strictlv,  with  Ewald  and  the  English  Version,  as  the  new  wine  is  found 
in  the  cluster,  and  one  says  destroy  it  not,  so  will  I  do,  &c.— Although 
Ci'n^n,  according  to  the  derivation  usually  given,  means  fermented  grape- 
juice  of  the  first  year,  it  is  evidently  here  applied  to  the  juice  in  its  original 
state,  unless  we  understand  it  to  be  used  proleptically  for  the  pledge  or 
earnest  of  new  wine.     A  blessing  is  in  it,  seems  to  mean  something  more 
than  that  it  has  some  value.     The  idea  meant  to  be  suggested  is,  that  God 
has  blessed  it,  and  that  man  should  therefore  not  destroy  it.     The  meaning 
of  the  simile  in  this  clause  appears  obvious,  and  yet  it  has  been  strangely 
misconceived  both  by  the  oldest  and  the  latest  writers.     Knobel  under- 
stands it  to  mean  that  as  a  grape  or  a  cluster  of  grapes  is  preserved  for  the 
sake  of  the  iuice,  notwithstanding  the  presence  of  the  stem,  skin,  and 
stones,  which  are  of  no  use,  so  the  good  Jews  shall  be  saved,  notwithstand- 
ing the  bad  ones  who  are  mingled  with  them.     But  this  explanation  would 
im^'ply  that  men  are  sometimes  disposed  to  destroy  good  grapes  because 
they  consist  partly  of  unprofitable   substances,  and  need  to  be  reminded 
that   the  juice  within   is  valuable.     :\luch  nearer  to  the  truth,   and  yet 
erroneous,  is  Jerome's  explanation  of  the  clause  as  relating  to  a_  single 
good  grape  in  a  cluster,  which  diminishes  the  force  of  the  comparison  by 
making  the  redeeming  element  too  insignificant.     The   image  really  pre- 
sented by  the  Prophet,  as  Vitringa  clearly  shews,  and  most  later  writers 
have  admitted,  is  that  of  a  good  cluster  (?13y'?«),  in  which  juice  is  found, 
while  others  are  unripe  or  rotten.—/  nill  do,  is  by  some  understood  as 
meaning  1  xoUi  act,  or  I  will  cause  it  to  be  so  ;  but  this  is  not  the  usage  of 
the  Hebrew  verb,  which  rather  means  precisely  what  the  English  /  loill  do 
denotes  in  such   connections,  i.  e.  I  will   do  so,  or  will  act  in  the  same 
manner. — 3ly  servants  is  by  some  understood  to  mean  the  patriarchs,  the 
fathers,  for  whose  sake  Israel  was  still  beloved  (Rcmi.  xi.  28).     It  is  more 
natural,  however,  to  apply  it  to  the  remnant,  according  to  the  election  of 
grace  (Rom.  xi.  5),  the  true  believers  represented  by  the  ripe  and  juicy 
cluster  in  the  foregoing  simile. — The  construction  of  the  last  words  is  the 
same  as  in  chap,  xlviii.  d.—  TJie  whole  is  a  literal  translation  of  the  He- 
brew phrase,  and  at  once  more  exact  and  more  expressive  than  the  common 
version,  them  all. 

9.  And  I  will  bring  forth  from  Jacob  a  seed,  and  from  Judah  an  Jieir  of 
my  mountains,  and  my  chosen  ones  ^hall  inherit  it,  and  my  servants  shall 


444  ISAIAH  LA'V.  1;Yer.  10. 

dtuell  there.  This  is  an  amplification  of  tho  promise,  /  uill  do  so,  iu 
the  foregoin*,'  verse.  Knobel's  interpretation  of  in*  as  meaning  a  generation, 
i.  c.  a  bod)-  of  contemporaries,  is  at  variance  both  with  ot}Tuology  and  nsage, 
with  the  parallel  expression,  heir  or  inheritor,  and  with  the  figurative  import 
of  the  verb,  which  is  constantly  applied  to  tho  generation  of  new  animal  and 
vegetable  products.  (Ser  chap.  i.  4.)  That  there  is  reference  to  propagation 
and  increase  is  also  rendered  probable  by  the  analog)'  of  chap,  xxvii.  (3,  and 
xxxvii.  81,  Objections  of  the  same  kind  may  be  urged  against  the  needless 
attenuation  of  the  proper  sense  of  t^V,  so  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  regular 
succession  and  hereditary  right.  My  mounta'nvi  is  supposed  by  Vitringa  to 
denote  mounts  Zion  and  Moriah,  or  Jerusalem  as  built  upon  them  ;  but  tho 
later  writers  more  coiTectly  suppose  it  to  describe  the  whole  of  Palestine, 
as  being  an  uneven,  hilly  countrv.  See  the  same  use  of  the  plural  in  chap, 
xiv.  2o,  aud  the  analogous  phrase,  vwnntaiua  of  Israel,  repeatedly  em- 
ployed by  Ezckiel  (xxxvi.  1,  8,  xxxviii.  8).  The  corresponding  singular, 
)iiy  viouiitain  (xi.  9,  Ivii.  18),  is  by  many  understood  in  the  same  mamier. 
Lowth  restores  that  reading  here  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  and 
Peshito,  but  imderstands  it  to  mean  Zion,  which  he  also  makes  the  antecedent 
of  the  sulHx  in  the  phrase  inherit  it,  while  Maurer  refers  it  to  the  land 
directly,  aud  some  of  the  older  ^Titers  make  it  a  collective  neuter.  The 
adverb  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  properly  means  thither,  and  is  never  per- 
haps put  for  iJtere  except  in  cases  where  a  change  of  place  is  previously  men- 
tioned or  implied.  If  so,  the  sense  is  not  merely  that  they  shall  abide 
there,  but  that  they  shall  first  go  or  return  thither,  which  in  this  connection 
is  itteuliarly  appropriate. — Of  the  promise  here  recorded  there  are  three 
principal  interpretations.  The  first,  embraced  by  nearly  all  the  modern 
Oermans,  is  that  the  verse  predicts  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Baby- 
lon. The  second  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  Henderson,  viz.  that  "  the 
future  happy  occupation  of  Palestine  by  a  regenerated  race  of  Jews  is  here 
dearly  predicted."  The  third  is  that  the  verse  foretells  the  peqietuation 
of  the  old  theocracy  or  Jewish  Church ;  not  in  the  body  of  the  nation, 
but  in  the  remnant  which  behoved  on  Christ ;  and  which,  enlarged  by  the 
accession  of  the  Gentiles,  is  identical  in  character  and  rights  with  the 
church  of  tho  old  dispensation,  the  heir  to  all  its  promises,  and  this  among 
the  rest,  which  either  has  been  or  is  to  be  fulfilled  both  in  a  literal  and 
liguralivo  sense  ;  in  the  latter,  because  the  church  already  has  what  is 
essentially  equivalent  to  tho  possession  of  the  hmd  of  Canaan  under  a 
local  CL-remonial  system  ;  in  the  former,  because  Palestine  is  yet  to  be 
recovered  from  the  Paynim  and  the  Infidel,  and  rightfully  occupied,  if 
not  by  Jews,  by  Christians,  as  the  real  seed  of  Abraham,  parUikers  of 
the  same  faith  aud  heirs  of  the  same  promise  (Heb.  xi.  9),  for  tho  pro- 
mise that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to 
his  seed  through  tho  law,  but  through  tho  righteousness  of  faith  (Koni. 
iv.  13).  If  it  should  please  God  to  cdUect  tho  natural  descendants  of  the 
patriarch  in  that  land  and  convert  them  in  a  body  to  the  true  faith,  there 
would  be  an  additional  coincidence  betweiii  the  projihecy  aud  the  event, 
even  in  miuor  circumstances,  such  as  we  often  find  iu  the  historv*  of  Christ, 
lint  if  no  such  national  rt'storalion  of  tho  Jews  to  Palestine  should  ever 
happen,  the  extension  of  the  true  religion  over  that  benighted  region,  which 
both  propiiecy  and  providence  encourage  as  to  look  for,  would  abundantly 
redeem  tlic  pledge  which  God  has  given  to  his  people  in  this  aud  other  parts 
of  Scripture. 

10.  And  Sharon  shall  be  fur  (or  become]  a  home  o/jloch,  and  the    J'all<i/ 


Yer.  11.1  ISAIAH  LXV.  445 

of  Achor  a  lair  of  herds,  for  my  people  who  hare  soayhf  me.      Tlii.s  is  a  ro- 
petition  of  the  promise  in  the  foregoing  verse,  rendered  more  specific  by 
the  mention  of  one  kind  of  prosperity,  viz.  that  connected  with  the  raising 
of  cattle,  and  of  certain  places  where  it  should  be  specially  enjoyed,  viz. 
the  valley  of  Achor  and  the  plain  of  Sharon.      Two  reasons  have  been 
given  for  the  mention  of  these  places,  one  derived  from  their  position,  the 
other  from  their  quality.     As  the  valley  of  Achor  was  near  Jericho  and 
Jordan,  and  the  plain  of  Sharon  on  the  Mediterranean,  between  Joppa  and 
Cesarea,  some  suppose  that  they  arc  here  combined  to   signify  the  whole 
breadth  of  the  land,  from  East  to  West.     And  as  Sharon  was  proverbial 
for  its  verdure  and  fertility  (see  above,  chaps,  xxxiii.  9,  xxxv.  2),  it  is  in- 
ferred by  some  that  Achor  was  so  likewise,  which  they  think  is  the  more 
probable  because  Hosea  says  that  the  valley  of  Achor  shall  be  a  door  of 
hope  (Hos.  ii.  17).     But  this  may  have  respect  to  the  calamity  which  Is- 
rael experienced  there  at  his  first  entrance  on  the  land  of  promise  (Joshua 
vii.  20),  so  that  where  his  troubles  then  began,  his  hopes  shall  now  begin. 
For  these  or  other  reasons  Sharon  and  Achor  are  here  mentioned  in  Isaiah's 
characteristic  manner,  as  samples  of  the  whole  land,  or  its  pastures,  just 
as  flocks  and  herds  are  used   as  images  of  industry  and  wealth,  derived 
from  the  habits  of  the  patriarchial  age.     That  this  is  the  correct  interpre- 
tation of  the  flocks  and  herds,  is  not  disputed  even  by  the  very  writers  who 
insist  upon  the  literal  construction  of  the  promise  that  the  seed  of  Jacob 
shall  possess  the  land,  as  guaranteeing  the  collection  of  the  Jews  into  the 
region  which  their  fathers  once  inhabited.      By  what  subtle  process  the 
absolute  necessity  of  literal  interpretation  is  transformed  into  a  very  large 
discretion  when  the  change  becomes  convenient,  is  a  question  yet  to  be 
determined. — That  to  seek  Jehovah  sometimes  has  specific  reference  to  re- 
pentance and  conversion,  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  been  alienated 
from  him,  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  chaps,  ix.  12,  and  Iv.  6. 

11.  And  {as  for)  you,  forsahers  of  Jehovah,  the  {men)  forgetting  my  holy 
mountain,  the  {men)  setting  for  Fortune  a  table,  and  the  men  filling  for  Fate 
a  mingled  draught.  This  is  only  a  description  of  the  object  of  address  ; 
the  address  itself  is  contained  in  the  next  verse.  The  form  Dj^XI  indicates 
a  contrast  with  what  goes  before,  as  in  chap.  iii.  14.  The  class  of  persons 
meant  is  first  described  as  forsakers  of  Jehovah  and  forgetters  of  his  holy 
mountain.  Rosenmiiller  understands  this  as  a  figurative  name  for  the  des- 
pisers  of  his  worship ;  but  Ivnobel,  as  a  literal  description  of  those  exiles 
who  had  lost  all  affection  for  Jerusalem,  and  had  no  wish  to  return  thither. 
The  description  of  the  same  persons  in  the  last  clause  is  much  more  obscure, 
and  has  occasioned  a  vast  amount  of  learned  disquisition  and  discussion. 
The  commentators  on  the  passage  who  have  gone  most  fully  into  the  details, 
are  Yitringa  and  Rosenmiiller  ;  but  the  clearest  summary  is  furnished  bv 
Gesenius.  The  strangest  exposition  of  the  clause  is  that  of  Zeltner,  in  a 
dissertation  on  the  verse  (1715),  in  which  he  applies  it  to  the  modern  Jews 
as  a  prolific  and  an  avaricious  race.  Many  interpreters  have  understood 
the  two  most  important  words  (15  and  'JP)  as  common  nouns  denoting 
troop  and  number  (the  former  being  the  sense  put  upon  the  name  Oad,  in 
Gen.  XXX.  11),  and  referred  the  whole  clause  either  to  convivial  assembhes, 
perhaps  connected  with  idolatrous  worship,  or  to  the  troop  of  planets  and 
the  multitude  of  stars,  as  objects  of  such  worship.  But  as  the  most  essential 
words  in  this  case  are  supplied,  the  later  writers,  while  they  still  suppose 
the  objects  worshipped  to  be  here  described,  explain  the  descriptive  terms 
in  a  different  manner.     Luther  retains  the  Hebrew  name  Gad  and  J/e/i/, 


446  ISAIAH  LXV.  [Ver.  11. 

which  are  also  ffiven  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible  ;  hut  most  inter- 
preters explain  them  by  equivalents.  Gesenius  ingeniously  argues  from 
the  etymology  of  the  names  that  they  relate  to  human  destiny  ;  and  from 
the  mNlholog}'  of  the  ancient  Eastern  nations,  that  they  relate  to  heavenly 
bodies.  He  dissents,  however,  from  Vitringa's  opinion  that  the  sun  and 
moon  are  meant,  as  well  as  from  the  notions  of  older  writers,  that  the 
names  are  descriptive  of  the  planetarv'  system,  the  signs  of  the  Zodiac, 
particular  constellations.  Sec.  His  own  opinion  is  that  13  is  the  planet 
Jupiter  (identical  with  liol  or  Baal),  and  *???  the  planet  Venus  (identical 
with  Ashtoretb),  which  are  called  in  the  old  Arabian  mythology  the  Greater 
and  Lesser  Fortune,  or  good  luck,  while  Saturn  and  Mars  were  known 
as  the  Greater  and  Lesser  Evil  Fortune,  or  III  Luck.  J.  I).  Michaelis 
had  long  before  explained  the  names  hero  used  as  meaning  Fortune 
and  Fate,  or  Good  and  Evil  Destiny  ;  and  Ewald,  in  like  manner,  under- 
stands the  planets  here  intended  to  be  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  while  Kiiobel 
goes  back  to  the  old  hypothesis  of  Vitringa  and  the  others,  that  the  names 
denote  the  Sun  and  Moon,  the  latter  assumption  being  chiefly  founded  on 
the  supposed  affinity  between  '3P  and  /-ir^vr].  Others  connect  it  with  the 
Arabic  'i\j^,  an  idol  worshipped  at  Mecca  before  the  time  of  Mohammed. 
Some  supposed  the  moon  to  be  called  '?P  (from  HpO  to  measure),  as  a  mea- 
sure of  time.  Amidst  this  diversity  of  theories  and  explanations,  only  a 
very'  minute  part  of  which  has  been  introduced  by  way  of  sample,  it  is 
satisfactoiy  to  find  that  there  is  perfect  unanimity  upon  the  only  point  of 
exegetical  importance,  namely,  that  the  passage  is  descriptive  of  idolatrous 
worship  ;  for  even  those  who  apply  it  directly  to  convivial  indulgences  con- 
nect tlie  latter  with  religious  institutions.  This  being  settled,  the  details 
still  doubtful  can  bo  interesting  only  to  the  philologist  and  anticpjarian. 
The  kind  of  offering  described  is  supposed  to  be  identical  with  the  Itcds- 
ternio  of  the  Roman  writers  ;  and  Gesenius  characteristically  says,  the  shew- 
bread  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  nothing  else  {nic/its  a7iJers).  The 
heathen  rite  in  question  consisted  in  the  spreading  of  a  feast  for  the  con- 
sumption of  the  gods.  Herodotus  mentions  a  r^a-i^a.  r,}jov  as  known  in 
Egv^pt ;  and  Jeremiah  twice  connects  this  usage  with  the  worship  of  the 
queen  of  heaven.  (Jer.  vii.  18,  xliv.  17.)  ^ppp  denotes  wixlure,  and  may 
either  mean  spiced  or  wine,  or  a  compound  of  different  liquors,  or  a  mere 
preparation  or  infusion  of  one  kind.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  139.) — As  to  the  ap- 
plication of  the  passage,  there  is  the  usual  division  of  opinion  among  the 
adherents  of  the  ditVcrent  hypothesis.  Henderson's  reasoning  upon  this 
verse  is  remarkable.  Having  applied  vers.  8-5  to  the  ancient  Jewish 
idolati-y,  he  might  have  been  expected  to  attach  the  same  sense  to  the 
words  before  us,  where  the  prophet  seems  to  turn  again  to  those  of  whom 
he  had  been  speaking  when  he  began  to  promise  the  deliverance  of  the  elect 
remnant  ver.  8.)  But  "  it  seems  more  natural  to  regard  them  as  the  impe- 
nitent and  worldly  portion  of  the  Jews  who  shall  live  at  the  time  of  the 
restoration."  The  reason  given  for  this  sudden  change  can  only  satisfy  the 
minds  of  those  who  agree  with  the  author  in  his  foregone  conclusion,  namely, 
that  "  the  persons  addressed  in  tliis  and  the  four  following  verses  are  con- 
trasted with  those  who  are  to  return  and  enjoy  the  divine  favour  in  Pales- 
tine." But  even  after  the  application  of  the  terms  is  thus  decided,  there 
is  a  question  not  so  easily  disposed  of,  as  to  what  they  mean.  The  prin- 
ciple of  strict  interpri'tation  might  be  thought  to  require  the  conclusion 
doubtingly  hinted  at  by  J.  1>.  Michaelis,  that  the  Jews  are  to  worship  Gad 
and  Mcni  hereafter.     But,  according  to  Henderson,  "  there  is  no  reason  to 


Yer.  12.]  ISAIAH  LXV.  447 

imagine  that  the  Jews  will  again  become  actual  idolaters,"  as  if  the  stiict 
interpretation  of  this  verse  would  not  itself  aflbrd  a  reason  not  for  imagin- 
ing but  for  believing  that  it  will  be  so.  But  rather  than  admit  this,  he 
declares  that  "  all  attempts  to  explain  Gad  and  3Ieni  of  idols  Hterally  taken, 
are  aside  from  the  point."  From  what  point  they  are  thus  aside  does  not 
appear,  unless  it  be  the  point  of  making  half  the  prophecy  a  loose  metapho- 
rical description,  and  cutting  the  remainder  to  the  quick  by  a  rigorously 
literal  interpretation."  "Israel,"  "Jerusalem,"  "the  land,"  miistvXX  denote 
the  "Israel,"  "Jerusalem,"  and  "land"  of  ancient  times  and  of  the  old 
economy  ;  but  all  attempts  to  explain  Gad  and  Meni  of  idols  literally  taken 
are  aside  from  the  point.  And  thus  we  are  brought  to  the  curious  result 
of  one  literal  interpretation  excluding  another  as  impossible.  The  true  sense 
of  the  passage  seems  to  be  the  same  as  in  vers.  8-7,  where  Henderson  him- 
self regards  the  prophet  as  completing  his  description  of  the  wickedness  of 
Israel,  by  circumstances  drawn  from  difl'erent  periods  of  his  history,  such 
as  the  idolatrous  period,  the  pharisaical  period,  &c. 

12.  And  I  have  numhered  you  to  the  stcord,  and  all  of  you  to  the  daxighter 
shall  hoiv  ;  because  I  called  and  ye  did  not  answer.,  I  S2)a]ce  and  ye  did  not  hear, 
and  ye  did  the  (tiling  that  was)  evil  in  my  eyes,  and  that  ichich  I  desired  not 
ye  chose.     The  preceding  verse  having  reference  only  to  the  present  and  the 
past,  the  Vav  at  the  beginning  of  this  can  have  no  conversive  influence 
upon  the  verb,  which  is  therefore  to  be  rendered  as  a  preterite.     The  objec- 
tions to  making  it  the  sign  of  the  apodosis  have  been  ah-eady  stated.     The 
paraphrastic  version,  therefore,  is  entirely  gratuitous.     Gesenius  gives  the 
verb  in  this  one  place  the  diluted  sense  of  allotting  or  appointing  ;  but  the 
strict  sense  of  numbering  or  counting  is  not  only  admissible,  but  necessary 
to  express  a  portion  of  the  writer's  meaning,  namely,  the  idea  that  they 
should  be  cut  ofi"  one  by  one,  or  rather  one  with  another,  i.  e.  all  without 
exception.      (See  chap,  xx-s-ii.  12,  and  vol.  i.  p.  442.)      Knobel,  indeed, 
imagines  that  a  universal  slaughter  cannot  be  intended,  because  he  goes  on 
to  tell  what  shall  befall  the  survivors,  viz.  hunger,  thirst,  disgrace,  distress, 
&c.     Hitzig  had  taste  enough  to  see  that  these  are  not  described  as  subse- 
quent in  time  to  the  evils  threatened  in  the  verse  before  us,  but  specifica- 
tions of  the  way  in  which  that  threatening  should  be  executed.     The  sense 
above  given  to  "Tl^^^  is  confirmed  and  illustrated  by  its  application  else- 
where to  the  numbering  of  sheep.      (Jer.  xxxiii.  13.)     In  its  use  here 
there  is  evident  allusion  to  its  derivative  ^^p  in  the  preceding  verse,  which 
some  of  the  German  writers  try  to  make  perceptible  to  German  readers  by 
combining  cognate  nouns  and  verbs,  such  as  Shicksal  and  scliiche,  Verhiivg- 
niss  and  verhdmje,  Bestimmung  and  hestimme,  &c.     The  same  eflect,  if  it 
were  worth  the  while,  might  be  produced  in  English  by  the  use  of  destiny 
and  destine.    Yitringa,  in  order  to  identify  the  figures  of  the  first  and  second 
clauses,  makes  "X}^  mean  a  butcher's  knife  ;  but  an  opposite  assimilation 
would  be  better,  namely,  that  of  making  HDt?  mean  slaughter  in  general, 
not  that  of  the  slaughter-house  exclusively.     Both  sword  and  slaughter  are 
familiar  figures  for  violent  destruction.     The  verb  Vy^  is  also  applied  else- 
where to  one  slain  by  violence  (Judges  v.  27,  2  Kings  ix.  24).     Bowing  or 
stooping  to  the  slaughter  is  submitting  to  it  either  willingly  or  by  compul- 
sion.    Gesenius  takes  n^P  in  the  local  sense  of  Schlachthard;  to  suit  which 
he  translates  the  verb  hicel,  and  the  particle  before.     This  last  Xoyes  re- 
tains without  the  others,  in  the  English  phrase  boiv  down  before  the  slaugh- 
ter, which  is  either  unmeaning,  or  conveys  a  false  idea,  that  of  priority  in 
time.     The  remainder  of  the  verse  assigns  the  reason  of  the  threatened 


448  ISAIAH  LXV.  [\kr.  13,  14. 

punishment.  The  first  expression  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  the  words 
of  Wisdom,  in  Prov,  i.  24-31.  Knobcl's  explanation  of  the  "thing  that 
was  evil  in  my  eyes"  as  a  description  of  idolatry,  is  as  much  too  restricted 
as  Yitringa's  explanation  of  "  that  which  I  desired  not  or  delighted  not  in" 
as  signifying  ritual  or  formal  as  opposed  to  spiritual  worship.  Of  the  two 
the  former  lias  the  least  foundation,  as  the  only  proof  cited  is  chap,  xxxviii.  3, 
whereas  Yitringa's  cxplanaticn  of  the  other  phrase  derives  no  little  coun- 
tenance from  Ps.  xl.  7,  li.  18,  Hos.  vi.  G.  The  only  objection  to  either  is 
that  it  mistakes  a  portion  of  the  true  sense  for  the  whole. — As  to  the  appli- 
cation of  the  words,  there  is  the  usual  confidence  and  contradiction. 
Knobel  regards  them  as  a  threatening  of  captivity  and  execution  to  the 
Jews  who  took  sidt-s  with  the  Babylonians  against  C^tus.  Henderson 
applies  them  to  the  inevitable  and  condign  punishment  of  those  Jews  who 
shall  prefer  the  pleasures  of  sin  to  those  of  true  religion  embraced  by  the  gi'eat 
body  of  the  nation,  which  punishment,  he  adds,  "  will,  in  all piobahility, 
be  inllicted  upon  them  in  common  with  the  members  of  the  anti-christian 
confederacy,  after  their  bilieving  brethren  shall  have  been  securely  settled 
in  Palestine."  The  grounds  of  this  all  prol^able  anticipation  are  not  given. 
Yitrin^a  understands  the  passage  as  predicting  the  excision  of  the  Jewish 
nation  from  the  church,  not  only  for  the  crowning  sin  of  rejecting  Christ, 
but  for  their  aggregate  offences  as  idolaters  and  h^'pocrites,  as  rebels  against 
God  and  dcspisers  of  his  mercy,  with  which  sins  they  are  often  charged  in 
the  Old  Testament  {e.;/.  chaps.  1.  2;  Ixv.  2;  Ixvi.  4;  Jer.  vii.  13,  25), 
and  still  more  pointedly  by  Christ  himself  in  several  of  his  parables  and 
other  discourses,  some  of  which  remarkably  resemble  that  before  us  both  in 
sentiment  and  language.  (See  ^lat.  xxiii.  37,  xxii.  7,  Luke  xix.  27,  and 
compare  Acts  xiii.  40).  Besides  the  countenance  which  this  analogy  affords 
to  Yitringa's  exposition,  it  is  strongly  recommended  by  its  strict  agreement 
with  what  we  have  determined,  independently  of  this  place,  lo  be  the  true 
sense  of  the  whole  foregoing  context.  Interpreted  by  these  harmonious 
analogies,  the  verse,  instead  of  threatening  the  destniction  of  the  Buby- 
lonii-h  Jews  before  the  advent,  or  of  the  wicked  Jews  and  Antichrist  here- 
after, is  a  distinct  prediction  of  a  far  more  critical  event  than  either,  the 
judicial  separation  of  the  Jewish  nation  and  the  Israel  of  God  which  had 
for  ages  seemed  inseparable,  not  to  say  identical. 

1.3,  14.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  Lo!  mt/  fterrant*  shall  eat 
and  v^  >ihall  hunger;  lo,  my  xer rants  shall  drink  and  j/e  shall  thirst;  lo,  my 
nervants  shall  rejoice  and  ye  shall  he  ashamed ;  lo,  my  servants  shall  shout 
from  yladness  of  heart,  and  ye  shall  cry  from  grief  of  heart,  and  from  hroken- 
Tjcs?  of  spirit  ye  shall  howl.  These  verses  merely  carr}-  out  the  general 
threatening  of  the  one  preceding,  in  a  series  of  poetical  antithesis,  where 
hunger,  thirst,  disgrace,  and  anguish,  take  the  place  of  sword  and  slaughter, 
and  determine  these  to  be  symbolical  or  emblematic  terms.  Knobcl's 
interpretation  of  these  voi-ses  as  predicting  bodily  privations  and  hard  bond- 
age to  those  wlut  should  escape  the  sword  of  Cyrus,  is  entitled  to  as  little 
deference  as  he  would  pay  to  the  suggestion  of  Yitringn,  that  the  eating 
and  drinking  have  specific  reference  to  the  joy  with  which  the  first  Chris- 
tian converts  partook  of  the  Lord's  supper  (Acts.  ii.  4(),  xx. 7).  This  is 
no  doubt  chargeable  with  nndue  refinement  and  particularity,  but  notwith- 
standing this  excess,  the  exposition  is  correct  in  principle,  as  we  may  learn 
from  the  frequent  use  of  these  antagonistic  metaphors  to  signify  spiritual 
joy  and  horror,  not  only  in  the  Prophets  (see  above,  chaps,  viii.  21, 
xxxiii.  IG,  Iv.  1,  Iviii.   14),  but  by  our  Saviour  when  he  speaks  of  his  dis- 


Yer.  15.j  ISAIAH  LXV.  449 

ciples  as  eating  bread  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Luke  xiv.  13),  where 
many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  sit  down  (or  recline  at 
table)  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  (Mat.  viii.  11)  ;  and  ascribes  to 
the  king  in  the  parable  the  solemn  declaration,  "I  say  unto  you  none  of 
those  men  that  wore  bidden  shall  taste  of  my  supper"  (Luke  xiv.  24).  Thus 
understood,  the  passage  is  a  solemn  prediction  of  happiness  to  the  believ- 
ing, and  of  miseiy  to  the  unbeheving  Jews.  The  latter  are  directly  ad- 
dressed, the  former  designated  as  my  servants. — Gladness  of  heart,  literally 
goodness  of  heart,  which  in  our  idiom  would  express  a  ditiercnt  idea,  on 
account  of  our  predominant  use  of  the  first  word  in  a  moral  sense.  For 
the  Hebrew  expression  see  Deut.  xxviii.  47,  Judges  xix.  6,  22.  For 
hrokenness  of  spirit,  compare  chap.  Ixi.  1,  and  Ps.  li.  17. — To  be  ashamed, 
as  often  elsewhere,  includes  disappointment  and  frustration  of  hope. 

15.  And  ye  shall  leave  your  name  for  an  oath  to  my  chosen  ones,  and  the 
lord  Jehovah  shall  slay  thee,  and  shall  call  his  servants  by  another  name 
(literally,  call  another  name  to  them).  The  object  of  address  is  still  the 
body  of  the  Jewish  nation,  from  which  the  believing  remnant  are  distin- 
guished by  the  names  my  chosen  and  7ny  servants.  Oath  is  here  put  for 
curse,  as  it  is  added  to  it  in  Dan.  ix.  11,  and  the  two  are  combined  in  Num. 
V.  21,  where  the  oath  of  cursing  may  be  regarded  as  the  complete  expres- 
sion of  which  oath  is  here  an  ellipsis.  To  leave  one's  name  for  a  curse, 
according  to  Old  Testament  usage,  is  something  more  than  to  leave  it  to  be 
cursed.  The  sense  is  that  the  name  shall  be  used  as  a  formula  of  cursing, 
so  that  men  shall  be  able  to  wish  nothing  worse  to  others  than  a  like  cha- 
racter and  fate.  This  is  clear  from  Jer.  xxix.  22,  compared  with  Zech. 
iii.  2,  as  well  as  from  the  converse  or  correlative  promise  to  the  patriarchs 
and  their  children,  that  a  like  use  should  be  made  of  their  names  as  a  formula 
of  blessing  (Gen.  xxii.  18,  xlviii.  20).  As  in  other  cases  where  the  use  of 
names  is  the  subject  of  discourse,  there  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  any 
actual  practice  is  predicted,  but  merely  that  the  character  and  fate  of  those 
addi-essed  will  be  so  bad  as  justly  to  admit  of  such  an  application. — Ewald 
ingeniously  explains  the  words  ^)>1^.  V^^  ^ri^PH,?  as  the  very  form  of  cursing 
to  be  used,  so  may  the  Lord  Jehovah  slay  thee!  This  construction,  though 
adopted  by  Umbreit  and  Ivnobel,  is  far  from  being  obvious  or  natural.  The 
preterite,  though  sometimes  construed  with  the  optative  particles,  would 
hardly  be  employed  in  that  sense  absolutely,  especially  in  the  middle  of  a 
sentence  preceded  and  followed  by  predictive  clauses,  each  beginning  with 
1,  which  on  Ewald's  supposition  must  be  either  overlooked  as  pleonastic  or 
violently  made  to  bear  the  sense  of  so.  Even  if  this  were  one  of  the  mean- 
ings of  the  particle,  a  more  explicit  form  would  no  doubt  have  been  used  in 
a  case  where  the  comparison  is  everything.  The  wish  required  by  the  con- 
text is  that  God  would  kill  them  so,  or  in  like  manner  ;  a  bare  wish  that 
he  would  kill  them,  would  be  nothing  to  the  purpose.  The  violence  of 
this  construction  as  an  argument  against  it  might  be  counteracted  by  exe- 
getical  necessity,  but  no  such  necessity  exists.  The  use  of  the  singular 
pronoun  thee,  so  far  from  requiring  it,  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  the  rest  of 
the  sentence.  As  the  phrase  your  name  shews  that  the  object  of  address 
is  a  plurality  of  persons  bearing  one  name,  or  in  other  words  an  organ- 
ized community,  so  the  singular  form  slay  thee  is  entu-ely  appropriate  to 
this  collective  or  ideal  person.  Of  the  last  clause  there  are  three  inter- 
pretations. The  Rabbinical  expounders  understand  it  as  the  converse  of 
the  other  clause.     As  your  name  is  to'  be  a  name  of  cursing,  so  my  ser- 

VOL.  n.  F  f 


450  ISAIAU  LXV.  [Ver.  1G. 

vants  are  to  have  another  name,  /.  c  a  name  of  blessing,  or  a  name  by 
which  men  shall  bless.  Others  give  it  a  more  general  sense,  as  mean- 
ing their  condition  shall  bo  altogether  ditlerent.  A  third  opinion  is  that 
it  relates  to  the  substitution  of  the  Christian  name  for  that  of  Jew,  as  a 
distinctive  designation  of  God's  people.  The  full  sense  of  the  clause  can 
only  be  obtained  by  combining  all  these  explanations,  or  at  least  a  part  of 
each.  The  first  is  obviously  implied,  if  not  expressed.  The  second  is 
established  by  analog}'  and  usage,  and  the  almost  unanhnous  consent  of  all 
interpreters.  The  only  question  is  in  reference  to  the  last,  which  is  of 
course  rejected  with  contempt  by  the  neologists,  and  regarded  as  fanciful 
by  some  Christian  writers.  These  have  been  influenced  in  part  by  the 
erroneous  assumption  that  if  this  is  not  the  whole  sense  of  the  words,  it 
cannot  be  a  part  of  it.  But  this  is  only  true  in  cases  where  the  two  pro- 
posed are  incompatible.  The  true  state  of  the  case  is  this.  According 
to  the  usage  of  the  prophecies  the  promise  of  another  name  imports  a 
difierent  character  and  state,  and  in  this  sense  the  promise  has  been  fully 
Terified.  But  in  addition  to  this  general  fulfilment,  which  no  one  calls  in 
question,  it  is  matter  of  histoiy  that  the  Jewish  commonwealth  or  nation  is 
destroyed  ;  that  the  name  of  Jew  has  been  for  centuries  a  by-word  and  a 
formula  of  execration,  and  that  they  who  have  succeeded  to  the  spiritual 
honours  of  this  once  favoured  race,  although  they  claim  historical  identity 
therewith,  have  never  borne  its  name,  but  another,  which  from  its  very 
nature  could  have  no  existence  until  Christ  had  come,  and  which  in  the 
common  parlance  of  the  Christian  world  is  treated  as  the  opposite  of  Jew. 
Now  all  this  must  be  set  aside  as  mere  fortuitous  coincidence,  or  it  must 
be  accounted  for  precisely  in  the  same  way  that  we  all  account  for  similar 
coincidences  between  the  hisfor}-  of  Christ  and  the  Old  Testament  in  minor 
points,  where  all  admit  that  the  direct  sense  of  the  prophecy  is  more  exten- 
sive. As  examples,  may  be  mentioned  John  the  Baptist's  preaching  in  a 
literal  wilderness,  our  Saviour's  riding  on  a  literal  ass,  his  literally  opening 
the  eyes  of  the  blind,  when  it  is  evident  to  everv  reader  of  the  original  pas- 
sages that  they  predict  events  of  a  far  more  extensive  and  more  elevated 
nature.  While  I  fully  believe  that  this  verse  assures  God's  servants  of  a 
very  different  fate  from  that  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  I  have  no  doubt  that 
it  also  has  resptct  to  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  State,  and  the  repudia- 
tion of  its  name  by  the  true  church  or  Israel  of  God. 

IG.  {By)  uhich  the  (mini)  hlessi?}^  himself  in  the  hnvl  (or  earth)  shall 
bless  himself  by  the  God  of  truth,  and  (by  which)  the  [vian)  swearimj  in  the 
laml  (or  earth)  shall  swear  by  the  God  oj  tru'h,  because  forgotten  are  the 
former  enmities  (or  troublei),  and  because  they  are  hidden  from  my  eyes. 
Two  things  have  dinded  and  pei-plexed  interpreters  in  this  verse,  as  it 
stands  connected  with  the  one  before  it.  The  first  is  the  apparent  change 
of  subject,  and  the  writer's  omission  to  record  the  newnume  which  had  just 
been  promised.  The  other  is  the  very  unusual  construction  of  the  relative 
">C'^?.  The  first  of  these  has  commonly  been  left  without  solution,  or  re- 
ferred to  the  habitual  freedom  of  the  writer.  The  ollur  has  been  variously 
but  very  unsuccessfully  explained.  Kinuhi  takes  it  in  the  sense  of  whm, 
Luther  in  that  of  so  that.  Vitringa  connects  it  with  the  participle,  as  if  it 
were  a  future.  KoKenniiiller  and  Gescnius  regard  it  as  redundant,  which  is 
a  mere  evasion  of  the  difficulty,  as  the  cases  which  they  cite  of  such  a  usage 
ore  entirel}'  irrelevant,  as  shewn  by  Maurer,  whose  own  hN'pothesis  is  not 
more  satisfactory,  viz.  that  either  the  article  or  relative  was  carelessly 
inserted  {negliyentitu  dictum).     Ewald  gives  the  relative  its  strict  sense, 


i 


Ver.  IC]  ISAIAH  LXV.  451 

and  makes  Jehovah  the  antecedent,  by  supplj'ing  before  it,  thus  salth  Jeho- 
vah (or  saith  he)  by  whom  the  man  that  blesses,  &c.  This  has  the  advan- 
tage of  adhering  to  the  strict  sense  of  tlie  pronoun,  but  the  disadvantage  of 
involving  an  improbable  ellipsis,  and  of  making  the  writer  say  circuitously 
what  ho  might  have  said  directly.  "  Thus  saith  ho  by  whom  the  person 
blessing  blesses  by  the  God  of  truth,"  is  perfectly  equivalent  to,  Thus  saith 
the  God  of  truth.  Both  these  objections  may  be  obviated  by  referring  I't  >? 
to  an  expressed  antecedent,  viz.  name,  a  construction  given  both  in  the 
Scptuagint  and  Vulgate  versions,  although  otherwise  defective  and  obscure. 
Another  advantage  of  this  construction  is  that  it  removes  the  abrupt  transi- 
tion and  supplies  the  name,  which  seems  on  any  other  supposition  to  be 
wanting.  According  to  this  view  of  the  place,  the  sense  is  that  the  people 
shall  be  called  after  the  God  of  truth,  so  that  his  name  and  theirs  shall  be 
identical,  and  consequently  whoever  blesses  or  sweai's  by  the  one,  blesses 
or  swears  hy  the  other  also.  The  form  in  which  this  idea  is  expressed  is 
pecuhar,  but  intelligible  and  expressive  :  "  His  people  he  shall  call  by 
another  name,  which  [i.  e.  with  respect  to  which,  or  more  specifically  by 
which)  he  that  blesseth  shall  bless  by  the  God  of  truth,"  &c.  Ewald  sup- 
poses blessing  and  cursing  to  be  meant,  as  oath  is  used  above  to  signify  a 
curse ;  but  most  interpreters  understand  by  blessing  himself,  praying  for 
God's  blessing,  and  bj'  swearing,  the  solemn  invocation  of  his  presence  as 
a  witness,  both  being  mentioned  as  acts  of  religious  worship  and  of  solemn 
recognition. — ]^^  is  probably  an  adjective  meaning  sure,  trustworthy,  and 
therefore  inclutling  the  ideas  of  reality  and  faithfulness,  neither  of  which 
should  be  excluded,  and  both  of  which  are  comprehended  in  the  English 
phrase,  the  true  God,  or  retaining  more  exactly  the  form  of  the  original, 
the  God  of  truth.  Henderson's  version,  "  faithful  God,"  expresses  only 
half  of  the  idea.  This  Hebrew  word  is  retained  in  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament,  not  only  as  a  particle  of  asseveration,  but  in  a  still  more  remark- 
able manner  as  a  name  of  Christ  (Rev.  i.  18,  iii.  14),  with  obvious 
reference  to  the  case  before  us ;  and  there  must  be  something  more  than 
blind  chance  in  the  singular  coincidence  thus  brought  to  light  between  this 
application  of  the  phrase  and  the  sense  which  has  been  put  upon  the  fore- 
going verse,  as  relating  to  the  adoption  of  the  Christian  name  by  the  church 
or  chosen  people.  As  applied  to  Christ,  the  name  is  well  explained  by 
Vitringa  to  describe  him  as  very  God,  as  a  witness  to  the  truth,  as  the  sub- 
stance or  reality  of  the  legal  shadows,  and  as  the  fultiller  of  the  divine  pro- 
mises. Ewald  agrees  wth  the  older  writers  in  rendering  p^2,  in  the  earth, 
but  most  interpreters  prefer  the  more  restricted  version,  in  the  land.  The 
difference  is  less  than  might  at  first  sight  be  supposed,  as  "  in  the  land  " 
could  here  mean  nothing  less  than  in  the  land  of  promise,  the  domain  of 
Israel,  the  church  in  its  widest  and  most  glorious  diffusion. — The  last 
clause  gives  the  reason  for  the  application  of  the  title,  God  of  truth,  viz. 
because  in  his  deliverance  of  his  people  he  will  prove  himself  to  be  the  true 
God  in  both  senses,  trulv  divine  and  eminently  faithful.  This  proof  will  bo 
atVorded  by  the  termination  of  those  evils  which  the  sins  of  his  own  people 
once  rendered  necessary.  Usage  is  certainly  in  favour  of  the  common  ver- 
sion, troubles  or  distresses  ;  but  there  is  something  striking  in  Lowth's 
version,  provocations,  which  agrees  well  with  what  seems  to  be  the  sense  of 
n^iy  in  chfip.  Ixiii.  9.  As  commonly  translated,  it  is  understood  by  Gese- 
nius  as  meaning  that  God  will  forget  the  former  necessity  for  punishing  his 
people,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he  will  forget  their  sins.  But 
Maurer  understands  the  sense  to  be  that  he  will  think  no  more  of  smiting 


io-1  ISAIAH  LXV.  .Vta.  17,  18. 

them  again.  Both  seem  to  make  the  last  words  a  pocticul  description  of 
oblivion  ;  but  Knobel  refers  what  is  said  of  forgetting  to  a  people,  and  only 
the  remaining  words  to  God. 

17.  For  lo  I  [iiin)  cietilin'/  (or  about  to  create)  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth,  arid  the  former  (things)  shall  not  he  remembered,  and  shall  not  conn 
up  into  the  mind  (literally,  on  the  heart).  Some  inteqjreters  refer  former 
to  heavens  and  earth,  which  makes  the  parallelism  more  exact ;  but  mot-t 
interpreters  refer  it  to  m"i-^*n  in  ver.  IG,  where  the  same  adjective  is  used, 
or  construe  it  indefinitely  in  the  sense  of  former  things.  Of  the  whole 
verse  there  are  several  distinct  intcqn-etations.  Aben  E/ra  understands  it  as 
predicting  an  improvement  in  the  air  and  soil,  conducive  to  longevity  and 
uninterrupted  health  ;  and  a  similar  opinion  is  expressed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
who  illustrates  the  verse  by  the  supposition  of  a  modern  writer  who  should 
describe  the  vast  improvement  in  Germany  since  ancient  times,  by  saying 
that  the  heaven  and  the  earth  are  new.  A  second  explanation  of  the  verse 
is  that  of  Thomas  Burnet  and  his  followers,  which  makes  it  a  prediction  of 
the  renovation  of  the  present  earth  with  its  skies,  &c.,  after  the  destruction 
of  the  present  at  the  day  of  judgment.  A  third  is  that  of  Vitringa,  who 
regards  it  as  a  figurative  prophecy  of  changes  in  the  church,  according  to  a 
certain  systematic  explication  of  the  several  parts  of  the  material  universe 
as  symbols.  Better  than  all  these,  because  requiring  less  to  be  assumed, 
and  more  in  keeping  with  the  usage  of  prophetic  language,  is  the  explana- 
tion of  the  verse  as  a  promise  or  prediction  of  entire  change  in  the  existing 
state  of  things,  the  precise  nature  of  the  change  and  of  the  means  by  which 
it  shall  be  brought  about  forming  no  part  of  the  revelation  here.  That  the 
words  are  not  inapplicable  to  a  revolution  of  a  moral  and  spiritual  nature, 
we  may  learn  from  Paul's  analogous  description  of  the  change  wrought 
in  conversion  (2  Cor.  v.  17  ;  Gal.  vi.  15),  and  from  Peter's  application 
of  this  very  passage,  "  Nevertheless,  we,  according  to  his  promise,  look  for 
new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness"  (2  Peter 
iii.  13).  That  the  words  have  such  meaning  even  here,  is  rendered  pro- 
bable by  the  last  clause,  the  oblivion  of  the  former  state  of  things  being 
much  more  naturally  connected  with  moral  and  spiritual  changes  than  with 
one  of  a  material  nature. 

18.  But  rejoice  and  be  glad  unto  eternity  [in)  that  which  I  (am)  creating, 
for  lo  I  {am)  crealin;/  .leiusalem  a  joy,  and  her  people  a  rejoicing,  i.  e.  a 
subject  or  occasion  of  it.  There  is  no  need  of  explaining  the  imperatives  as 
futures,  though  futurity  is  of  course  implied  in  the  command.  It  would 
be  highly  arbitrary  to  explain  uhat  i  create  in  this  place  as  diiVirent  from 
the  creation  in  the  verse  preceding.  It  is  there  said  that  a  creation  shall 
take  place.  It  is  here  enjoined  upon  God's  people  to  rejoice  in  it.  But 
here  the  creation  is  declared  to  be  the  making  of  Jerusalem  a  joy  and  Isnvol 
a  rejoicing.  Now  the  whole  analogy  of  the  foregoing  prophecies  leads  to 
the  conclusion  that  this  means  the  exaltation  of  the  church  or  chosen 
people  ;  and  the  same  analog}'  admits  of  that  exaltation  being  represented 
as  a  revolution  in  the  frame  of  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  a  literal  pre- 
diction of  new  heavens  and  new  earth  would  scarcely  have  been  followed 
by  a  reference  merely  to  the  church  ;  and  if  Jerus^alem  and  Zipn  bo  ox- 
plained  to  mean  the  lit^^-ral  Jerusalem  and  the  restored  Jews,  the  only 
alternative  is  then  to  conclude  that  as  soon  as  they  return  to  Palestine,  it 
and  the  whole  earth  are  to  be  renewed,  or  else  that  what  relates  to  Jeru- 
salem and  Israel  is  literal,  and  what  relates  to  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
metaphorical,  although,  as  we  have  just  seen,  the  connection  of  the  verses 


Ykr.  19,  20.]  ISAIAH  LXV.  453 

renders  it  necessary  to  regard'  the  two  events  as  one.  From  all  these  in- 
congruities we  are  relieved  by  understanding  the  whole  passage  as  a  poetical 
description  of  a  complete  and  glorious  change. 

19.  And  I  wiU  rejoice  in  Jerusalem,  and  joy  in  my  people ;  and  there  shall 
not  he  heard  in  her  ayain  the  voice  of  ireepiny  and  the  voice  of  cryiny.  Con- 
sidered as  the  language  of  the  Prophet  himself,  this  would  express  his 
sympathetic  interest  in  the  joyous  changes  which  awaited  his  people.  But 
such  an  application  would  be  wholly  arbitrary,  as  Jehovah  is  undoubtedly 
the  speaker  in  the  foregoing  verse,  where  he  claims  creative  power ;  and 
even  here  there  is  an  implication  of  divine  authority  in  the  promise  that 
weeping  shall  no  more  be  heard  in  her.  There  is  something  very  beauti- 
ful in  the  association  of  ideas  here  expressed.  God  shall  rejoice  in  his 
people,  and  they  shall  rejoice  with  him.  They  shall  no  longer  know  what 
grief  is,  because  he  shall  cease  to  grieve  over  them  ;  their  former  distresses 
shall  be  forgotten  by  them,  and  for  ever  hidden  from  his  eyes. 

20.  There  shall  he  no  more  from  there  an  infant  of  clays,  and  an  old  man 
luho  shall  not  fulfil  Jtis  days ;  for  the  child  a  hundred  years  old  shall  die,  and 
the  sinner  a  hundred  years  old  shall  be  accursed. — Some  refer  Dtf'P  to  time, 
and  understand  it  to  mean  thenceforth,  a  departure  from  the  settled  usage 
which  can  be  justified  onl}'  by  necessity.  Others  regard  the  preposition  as 
unmeaning,  and  read  there,  which  is  as  ai-bitrary  as  Lowth's  reading  Qt?*, 
neither  of  which  proceedings  can  be  justified  by  the  example  of  the  ancient 
versions.  The  strict  translation  thence  {from  there)  is  not  only  admissible  but 
necessary  to  the  sense.  It  does  not,  however,  mean  springing  or  proceeding 
thence,  but  taken  away  thence,  or  as  Kimchi  has  it,  carried  thence  to  burial. 
It  is  thus  equivalent  to  nitSJ  in  the  next  clause,  and  denotes  that  none  shall  die 
there  in  infancy.  In  consequence  of  not  correctly  apprehending  this,  Hitzig 
alleges  that  this  first  clause  by  itself  can  only  mean  that  there  shall  bo  no 
longer  any  infants,  to  avoid  which  paralogism  he  connects  D*^''  ?iy  as  well 
as  IpT  with  the  following  words  :  neither  infant  nor  old  man  who  shall  not 
fulfil  their  days.  But  there  is  no  need  of  this  tautological  construction  if 
Dti'P  niri)  implies  death,  and  Q^PJ  a  few  days  only,  which  last  is  more 
agreeable  to  usage  than  the  specific  sense  of  year,  which  some  assume. 
A  curious  turn  is  given  to  the  sentence  by  some  of  the  older  writers,  who 
take  fulfil  his  days  in  the  moral  sense  of  spending  them  well,  with  special 
reference  to  improvement  in  knowledge,  and  the  child  as  meaning  one  who 
even  at  a  very  advanced  age  continues  still  a  child  in  understanding,  and 
shall  therefore  die.  Still  more  unnatural  is  the  modification  of  this  exposi- 
tion by  Cocceius,  who  explains  the  whole  to  mean  that  men  shall  have  as 
abundant  opportunities  of  instruction  in  the  truth  as  if  they  enjoyed  a 
patriarchal  longevity,  so  that  he  who  perishes  for  lack  of  knowledge  will 
be  left  without  excuse.  Viti-inga  justly  repudiates  these  fixr-fetched  ex- 
planations, but  agrees  with  them  in  understanding  shall  die  as  an  emphatic 
threatening,  and  in  departing  from  the  ordinary  sense  of  "IJ?3,  which  he 
takes  to  be  here  an  equivalent  to  sinner.  All  the  modern  writers  are  agreed 
as  to  the  literal  meaning  of  this  last  clause,  though  they  dilTer  as  to  the 
relation  of  its  parts.  Some  regard  it  as  a  synonymous  parallelism,  and 
understand  the  sense  to  be  that  he  who  dies  a  hundred  years  old,  will  be 
considered  as  dying  young,  and  by  a  special  curse  from  God  interrupting 
the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  Others  follow  Do  Dieu  in  making  the 
parallelism  antithetic,  and  contrasting  the  child  with  the  sinner.  Perhaps 
the  true  view  of  the  passage  is,  that  it  resumes  the  contrast  drawn  in 
vers.  13-15  between  the  servants  of  Jehovah  and  the  sinners  there  ad- 


454  ISAIAU  LXV.  [Veb.  21-2i. 

dressed.  Vers,  16-19  may  then  be  regarded  as  a  parenthetical  amplifica- 
tion. As  if  ho  had  said,  My  servants  shall  eat,  but  ye  shall  be  hungiy  ; 
my  servants  shall  drink,  but  ye  shall  bo  thirsty  ;  my  servants  shall  rejoice, 
but  ye  shall  mourn  ;  my  servants  shall  be  just  beginning  life  when  ye  are 
driven  out  of  it ;  among  the  former,  he  who  dies  a  hundred  years  old  shall 
die  a  child  ;  among  you,  he  who  dies  at  the  same  age  shall  die  accursed. 
On  the  whole,  however,  the  most  natural  meaning  is  the  one  already  men- 
tioned as  prefened  by  most  modem  writers.  Premature  death,  and  even 
death  in  a  moderate  old  age,  shall  be  r.nkno'wn  ;  he  who  dies  a  hundred 
years  old  shall  be  considered  either  as  dying  in  childhood,  or  as  cut  ofl" 
by  a  special  malediction.  The  whole  is  a  highly  poetical  description  of 
longevity,  to  be  explained  precisely  like  the  promise  of  new  heavens  and 
a  new  earth  in  ver.  17.  Beck's  gross  expressions  of  contempt  fur  the 
absurdity  of  this  verse  are  founded  on  a  wilful  perversion  or  an  ignorant 
misapprehension.  Ewald  is  equally  unjust  but  less  indecent  in  his  rejjre- 
sentation  of  this  verse  as  a  lanatical  anticipation  of  the  literal  change  which 
it  describes. 

21,  22.  And  they  shall  build  homes  and  inhabit  {them),  and  shall  plant 
vineyards  and  eat  th^  fruit  of  them,  they  shall  not  build  and  another  inhabit, 
they  shall  not  plant  and  another  eat ;  for  as  the  days  of  a  tree  {shall  be)  tlie 
days  of  my  2}eople,  and  the  ivork  of  their  hands  niy  ehosen  ones  shall  wear  out 
(or  survive).  This  is  a  promise  of  security  and  permanent  enjoyment, 
clothed  in  expressions  drawn  from  the  promises  and  threatiiiiugs  of  the 
Mosaic  law.  liy  the  age  of  a  tree  is  generally  understood  the  great  ago 
which  some  species  are  said  to  attain,  such  as  the  oak,  tho  banyan,  &c. 
But  Knobel  takes  it  in  the  general  sense  of  propagation  and  succession, 
and  understands  the  promise  to  be  that,  as  trees  succeed  each  other  natu- 
rally and  for  ever,  so  shall  the  chosen  of  Jehovah  do.  The  essential  idea 
is  in  either  case  that  of  permanent  continuance,  and  the  iigures  here  used 
to  express  it  make  it  still  more  probable  that  in  tho  whole  foregoing  con- 
text the  predictions  are  to  be  figuratively  under^tood. 

23.  lliey  shall  not  labour  in  rain,  and  they  shall  not  bring  forth  for  terror; 
for  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  Jehovah  arc  they,  and  their  off'xpring  icith  them. 
The  sense  of  sudden  destruction  given  to  "^^  "75  by  Forae  modern  writers,  is 
a  mere  conjecture  from  tho  context,  and  no  more  correct  than  the  transla- 
tion curse,  which  others  derive  from  the  Arabic  analogy,  and  which  Hender- 
son regards  as  the  primitive  meaning.  The  Ilebresv  word  properly  denotes 
extreme  agitation  and  alarm,  and  the  meaning  of  the  clause  is  that  they 
shall  not  bring  forth  children  merely  to  be  subjects  of  distressing  solicitude. 
Knobel,  as  in  chap.  i.  4,  takes  VTi.t  in  the  sense  of  a  generation  or  contem- 
porary race ;  bat  it  adds  greatly  to  the  strength  of  the  expression  if  we 
give  its  more  usual  sense  of  progeny  or  oflspring  :  they  are  themselves  tho 
offspring  of  those  blessed  of  God,  and  their  own  oflspring  likewise,  us  the 
older  writers  understand  DJ^K,  while  the  moderns  suppose  it  to  mean  shall 
he  with  them,  i.  e.  shall  continue  with  them,  as  opposed  to  the  alarm  referred 
to  in  the  other  clause.  Umbreit's  idea  that  the  picture  of  domestic  happi- 
ness is  here  completed  by  the  unexpected  stroke  of  parents  and  children 
still  conf inning  to  live  together,  is  ingenious  and  refined,  perhaps  too  much 
so  tf)  be  altogether  natural  in  this  connection. 

21.  And  it  shall  he  (or  come  to  pass),  (hat  they  shall  not  yet  have  called 
and  1  will  unstoer,  yet  {slmll)  they  (hr)  speaking  and  I  will  hear.  A  strong 
expression  of  God's  readineps  to  hear  and  answer  prayer,  not  a  mere  pro- 
mise that  it  shall  be  heard  (like  that  in  Jer.  xxix.  12;  Zech.  xiii.  9),  but 


Vek.  25.]  ISAIAH  LXV.  455 

an  assurance  that  it  shall  bo  gi'anted  before  it  is  heard.  The  nearest 
parallel  is  Mat.  vi.  8,  where  our  Lord  himself  says,  Your  Father  knoweth 
what  things  ye  have  need  of,  before  ye  ask  him.  (Compare  chap.  xxx.  19, 
Iviii.  9 ;  Ps.  cxlv.  18,  19.)— D.79  is  commonly  explained  here  as  a  conjunc- 
tion, before  theij  call,  and  Gesenius  gives  this  as  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  particle.  But  according  to  Hitzig  and  Maurer,  this  is  always 
expressed  by  the  compound  form  D'lp?,  and  the  simple  form  invariably 
means  not  yet.  This  construction,  which  might  otherwise  seem  very  harsh, 
is  favoured  by  the  use  of  the  conjunction  and,  which,  on  the  usual  hyjio- 
thesis,  must  be  omitted  or  regarded  merely  as  a  sign  of  the  apodosis,  whereas 
in  the  parallel  clause  it  occupies  precisely  the  same  place,  and  can  only  be 
taken  in  its  usual  sense.  Lovvth  attempts  to  reproduce  the  form  of  the 
original,  but  not  with  much  success,  by  rendering  the  last  clause,  "  they 
shall  be  yet  speaking  and  I  shall  have  heard."  The  parallel  verbs  both 
mean  to  hear  prayer  in  a  favourable  sense,  and  are  therefore  rendered  in  the 
Vulgate  by  the  cognate  forms  audiam  and  exaiicUam.  The  last  verb  is 
curiously  paraphrased  in  the  Septuagint,  /  iv  ill  say,  what  is  it?  [i^ui  rl  san.) 
25.  The  wolf  and  the  lamb  shall  feed  as  one,  and  the  lion  like  the  ox 
shall  eat  straw,  and  the  serpent  dust  {for)  his  food.  They  shall  not  hurt  and 
they  shall  not  corrupt  (or  destroy)  in  all  my  holy  mountain,  saith  Jehovah. 
The  promise  of  a  happy  change  is  wound  up  in  the  most  appropriate  man- 
ner by  repeating  the  prophecy  in  chap.  xi.  6-9,  that  all  hurtful  influences 
shall  for  ever  cease  in  the  holy  hill  or  church  of  God.  Yet  Knobel  ven- 
tures to  assert  that  it  is  an  unmeaning  imitation  of  that  passage,  introduced 
here  without  any  just  connection,  and  perhaps  by  a  difl'ijrent  hand  from  that 
of  the  original  writer.  Another  fact  which  had  escaped  preceding  writers, 
is  that  the  phrase  as  one  belongs  to  the  later  Hebrew,  because  used  in  Eccles. 
xi.  6,  whereas  it  is  essentially  identical  with  as  one  man  in  Judges  xx.  8, 
1  Sam.  xi.  7.  It  is  not  a  simple  synonyme  of  1'J'n?,  together  (the  word  used 
in  chap.  xi.  G,  but  much  stronger  and  more  graphic  ;  so  that  Lowth  only 
weakens  the  expression  by  proposing  to  assimilate  the  readings  on  the  autho- 
rity of  a  single  manuscript.  Another  point  in  which  the  description  is  here 
heightened  is  the  substitution  of  n?p,  a  young  and  tender  lamb,  for  'K'5|,  a 
he-lamb  of  riper  age.  Ewald  expresses  the  distinction  here  by  using  the 
diminutive  term  Lilmmlein.  Instead  of  the  lion  like  the  ox,  the  Vulgate  has 
the  lion  and  the  ox  (leo  et  hos),  and  that  the  et  is  not  an  error  of  the  text 
for  ut  appears  from  the  plural  form  of  the  verb  comedent.  IMost  of  the 
modern  writers  construe  K*ni  as  a  nominative  absolute,  as  for  the  serpent, 
dust  {shall  he)  his  food.  A  more  obvious  construction  is  to  repeat  the  verb 
shall  eat,  and  consider  dust  and  food  as  in  apposition.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
supplies  continue  (bleibe),  and  most  writers  regard  this  idea  as  implied 
though  not  expressed :  The  serpent  shall  continue  to  eat  dust.  Michaelis 
and  Gesenius  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  popular  belief  that  serpents  feed  on 
dust  becaase  they  creep  upon  the  ground,  and  understand  the  prophecy  to 
be  that  thej'  shall  henceforth  be  contented  with  this  food  and  cease  to  prey 
on  men  or  other  animals.  But  this,  as  Vitringa  well  observes,  would  be  too 
small  a  promise  for  the  context,  since  a  very  small  part  of  the  e^^ls  which 
men  sufler  can  arise  from  this  cause.  He  tUerefore  understands  the  clause 
to  mean  that  the  original  curse  upon  the  serpent  who  deceived  Eve  (Gen. 
iii.  11)  shall  be  fully  executed.  (Compare  Rev.  xx.  1-3.)  He  refers  to 
some  of  his  contemporaries  as  explaining  it  to  mean  that  the  serpent  should 
henceforth  prey  only  upon  low  and  earthly  men ;  but  this  would  be  too 
large  a  concession,  and  the  true  sense  seems  to  be  that,  in  accordance  with 


456  ISAIAH  LXVI.  [Ver.  1. 

his  ancient  doom,  he  shall  be  rendered  harmless,  robbed  of  his  favourite 
nutriment,  and  made  to  bite  the  dust  at  the  feet  of  his  conqueror.  (Gen. 
iii.  15  ;  Rom.  ivi.  20  ;  1  John  iii.  8;  compare  Isaiah  xlix.  20.) — The  last 
clause  resolves  the  figure  of  the  first.  The  verbs  are  therefore  to  be  under- 
stood indefinitely,  as  in  chap.  xi.  9;  or  if  they  be  referred  to  the  animals  pre- 
viously mentioned,  it  is  only  a  symbolical  or  tropical  expression  of  the  same 
idea.  Hitzig  gratuitously  says  that  the  verbs  which  in  the  other  place  relate 
to  men,  are  here  determined  to  refer  to  animals  by  the  connection  ;  to  which 
Ivnobel  flippantly  replies  that  this  is  not  the  case,  because  there  is  no  con- 
nection to  determine  it.  The  truth  is,  that  the  form  of  expression  is  the 
same  in  either  case,  except  that  what  begins  a  verse  in  the  eleventh  chapter 
here  concludes  one.  Had  the  passage  here  repeated  been  in  one  of  the 
Bo-called  later  chapters,  it  would  no  doubt  have  been  cited  as  a  proof  of  the 
author's  identity;  but  no  such  proof  can  be  admitted  by  the  "higher  criticism," 
in  favour  of  identifying  the  writer  of  this  chapter  with  the  genuine  Isaiah. 
Rather  than  Hsten  to  such  reasoning,  the  "  higher  critics  "  make  it  a  case  of 
imitation  and  abridgment,  and  one  of  them,  as  we  have  seen,  of  ignorant 
interpolation. — For  any  further  explanation  of  this  verse,  the  reader  is  referred 
to  vol.  i.  pp.  253-255. 


CHAPTER   LXVI. 

This  chapter  v>-inds  up  the  prophetic  discourse  with  an  express  prediction 
of  the  change  of  dispensation,  and  a  description  of  the  diflerence  between 
them.  Jehovah  will  no  longer  dwell  in  temples  made  with  hands,  ver.  1. 
Every  sincere  and  humble  heart  shall  be  his  residence,  ver.  2.  The  ancient 
eacritices,  though  divinely  instituted,  will  henceforth  be  as  hateful  as  the 
rites  of  idolatrv-,  ver.  3.  They  who  still  cling  to  the  abrogated  ritual  will  be 
fearfully  but  righteously  requited,  ver.  4.  The  true  Israel  cast  out  by  these 
deluded  sinners  shall  ere  long  be  glorified,  and  the  caraal  Israel  fearfully 
rewarded,  vers.  5,  G.  The  ancient  Zion  may  already  be  seen  travaihng  with 
a  new  and  glorious  dispensation,  vers.  7-9.  They  who  mourned  for  her 
seeming  desolation,  nowrejoice  in  her  abundance  and  her  honour,  vers.  10-14. 
At  the  same  time  the  carnal  Israel  shall  be  destroyed,  as  apostates  and 
idolaters,  vers.  14-17.  The  place  which  they  once  occupied  shall  now  be 
filled  by  the  elect  from  all  nations,  ver.  18.  To  gather  these,  a  remnant  of 
the  ancient  Israel  shall  go  forth  among  the  Gentiles,  ver.  19.  They  shall 
come  from  every  quarter,  and  by  every  method  of  conveyance,  ver.  20.  They 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  sacerdotal  honours  of  the  chosen  people,  ver.  21. 
This  new  dispensation  is  not  to  be  temporary,  like  the  one  before  it,  but 
shall  last  for  ever,  ver.  22.  While  the  spiritual  Israel  is  thus  replenished 
from  all  nations,  the  apostate  Israel  shall  perish  by  a  lingering  decay  in 
the  sight  of  an  astonished  world,  vers.  23,  24. 

1.  Tlius  saith  Jehovah.  The  heavens  {are)  v\y  throne,  and  the  earth  n\y 
Jontstool ;  where  is  (or  what  is)  the  house  which  ye  will  huihl  /or  me,  and 
where  is  (or  what  is)  the  jdace  of  my  rest  f  literally,  the  ]>hice  my  rest, 
i.  e.  the  place  which  is  or  can  be  my  rest  or  permanent  abode.  The  same 
term  is  elsewhere  appliid  to  the  temple,  as  distinguished  from  the  taber- 
nacle or  moveable  sanctuary.  (Sec  2  Sam.  vii.  G,  2  Chron.  vi.  41,  Ps. 
cxxxii.  8.)  As  to  the  sense  of  npN,  see  above,  p.  24G.  In  this  case 
trhrre  is  less  appropriate  than  uhat,  as  tlio  inquiry  seems  to  have  respect 
to  the  nature  or  the  quality  rather  than  the  mere  locality  of  the  edifice  in 


Ver.  l.j  ISAIAH  LXVI.  457 

question.  Hitzig  translates  r}??  strictly  a  house,  and  l^^n  is  variously 
rendered  ye  build,  in  the  English  Bible ;  ye  would  build,  by  Ewald  ;  ye 
could  build,  by  Gesenius,  &c.  ;  but  the  simplest  and  best  version  is  ye 
will  hu'ild,  as  including  all  the  others.  All  interpreters  agree  that  this 
question  implies  disapprobation  of  the  building  as  at  variance  with  the 
great  truth  propounded  in  the  first  clause,  namely,  that  the  frame  of 
nature  is  the  only  material  temple  v>orthy  of  Jehovah.  This  obvious 
relation  of  the  clauses  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  set  aside  two  of  the  old 
interpretations  of  the  passage.  The  first  is  that  of  Kimchi,  favoured 
more  or  less  by  Calvin  and  some  later  writers,  which  supposes  that  this 
chapter  is  a  counterpart  to  the  first,  and  that  the  Prophet  here  recurs  to  his 
original  theme,  the  corruptions  and  abuses  of  his  own  age.  But  besides 
the  undisputed  references  to  the  future  in  the  latter  part  of  this  very  chapter, 
it  has  been  conclusively  objected  by  Vitringa  to  the  theory  in  question, 
that  in  the  reigns  of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah  there  could  be  no  thought  of 
building  or  rebuilding,  nor  even  of  repairing  or  adorning  the  temple,  but 
rather  of  despoiling  it.  (2  Kings  xvi.  17,  18  ;  xviii.  15.)  The  same 
objection  lies  against  the  theory  of  Grotius,  that  this  chapter  was  intended 
to  console  the  pious  Jews  who  were  debarred  from  the  customary  public 
worship  during  the  profanation  of  the  temple  by  Antiochus  Epiphaues.  In 
neither  of  these  cases  could  there  he  occasion  for  objecting  to  the  building  or 
rebuilding  of  the  temple.  Those  who  refer  this  whole  series  of  predictions  to 
the  period  of  the  Babylonish  exile  find  it  hard  to  explain  this  chapter  upon 
that  hypothesis,  since  the  building  of  the  temple  is  urged  upon  the  people 
as  a  duty  by  the  aclmowledged  prophets  of  the  exile.  In  order  to  facilitate 
the  process,  some  of  them  detached  it  from  the  foregoing  context,  on  the 
ground  of  its  abrupt  commencement,  which  is  not  at  all  more  striking  than 
in  other  cases  where  no  such  conclusion  has  been  drawn,  because  not  felt 
to  be  necessary  for  the  critic's  purpose.  Eichhorn  found  this  a  fit  occasion 
for  the  application  of  the  "  higher  criticism,"  and  he  accordingly  strikes 
out  vers.  1-17  of  this  chapter  as  an  older  composition  than  the  rest,  the 
exact  date  not  definable,  but  certainly  prior  to  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish 
monarchy.  Paulus  and  Rosenmiiller,  on  the  other  hand,  regard  the  v/hole 
as  later  than  the  first  return  from  Babylon.  ]3etwecn  these  extremes 
Gesenius  as  usual  undertakes  to  mediate,  condemns  the  first  as  "  treunende 
I^itik,"  and  refutes  it  by  a  copious  but  superfluous  detail  of  minute  coin- 
cidences both  of  thought  and  language  between  the  disputed  passage  and 
the  foregoing  chapters  which  he  therefore  supposes  to  belong  to  the  same 
period.  From  this  decision  there  is  no  material  dissent  among  the  later 
writers,  although  Ilitzig  asserts  in  the  strongest  terms  the  utter  want  of 
connection  between  this  and  the  preceding  chapters.  The  same  assertion 
might  be  made  with  equal  plausibility  in  any  other  case  of  a  continued  com- 
position where  the  writer  is  not  trammelled  by  a  systematic  method  ;  but 
passes  freely  from  one  topic  to  another,  in  obedience  to  a  lively  and  un- 
checked association  of  ideas.  No  reader  or  interpreter  who  has  not  a 
hypothesis  to  verify  will  find  any  reason  for  supposing  a  greater  interruption 
here  than  at  the  end  of  an  ordinary  paragraph.  The  fallacy  of  the  contrary 
assertion  has  been  shewn  by  Vitringa  to  consist  in  assuming  that  the  pas- 
sages are  unconnected  unless  the  first  verse  of  the  second  carries  out  the 
thought  expressed  in  the  last  verse  of  the  first,  whereas  the  chapter  now 
before  its  is  in  some  sense  parallel  to  that  before  it,  taking  up  the  subject 
at  the  same  point  and  bringing  it  at  last  to  the  same  issue.  That  exposi- 
tion is  indeed  most  probably  the  true  one  which  assumes  the  most  intimate 


458  ISAIAJI  LXVl.  [Ver.  1. 

counectiou  of  the  cbapters  here,  aud  is  least  dependent  npou  forced  divi- 
sions and  arbitrary'  intervals  crowded  with  imaginary  events.  Thus  Rosen- 
luiillcr  thinks  that  in  the  interval  between  these  chapters  the  tribes  of 
Lenjamin  and  Jndah  had  rest)lved  to  exclude  the  others  from  all  participa- 
tion in  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  and  that  the  passage  now  before  us 
was  intended  to  reprove  them  for  their  want  of  charity,  as  if  ibis  end  could 
be  accomplished  by  proclaiming  the  w(»rthlessness  of  all  material  temples, 
which  is  tantamount  to  saying,  "Why  do  ye  refuse  to  let  your  countr)-men 
assist  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  since  no  temples  are  of  any  value  ? 
Hitzig's  imagination  is  still  more  prolific,  and  invents  a  project  to  erect 
another  templu  in  Chaldea  as  a  Buccedaneum  for  returning  to  Jerusalem. 
At  the  same  time  his  superior  acuteness  guards  against  the  palpable 
absurdity  already  mentioned,  by  supposing  the  error  here  corrected  to  be 
that  of  believing  that  the  mere  erection  of  a  temple  would  discharge  their 
obligations  and  secure  their  welfare,  without  any  reference  to  what  Jehovah 
had  commanded.  They  are  therefore  taught  that  he  has  no  need  «.-f  material 
dwellings,  and  that  these,  to  be  of  any  value,  must  be  built  exactly  when, 
and  where  and  as  he  pleases  to  require.  (1  Sam.  xv.  22,  23.)  This 
ingenious  exposition  would  be  faultless  if  it  rested  upon  any  fii-mcr  basis 
than  a  perfectly  imaginary  fact.  That  there  is  any  proof  of  it  from  other 
quarters,  is  not  pretended.  That  it  is  not  a  necessary  inference  from  that 
before  us,  will  be  clear  when  the  true  interpretation  has  been  given.  It  is 
necessar}'  first  to  state,  however,  that  while  Hit/.ig  thus  infers  from  the 
text  itself  a  fact  unknown  to  history  because  it  never  happened,  Henderson 
with  equal  confidence  infers  from  it  a  fact  as  little  known  to  history,  but 
fur  a  very  dilbrent  reason.  "While  the  one  considers  it  as  proving  that 
a  parly  of  the  exiles  in  Babylon  desired  to  build  a  temple  there  instead 
of  going  back  to  Palestine,  the  other  considers  it  as  proving  that  part 
of  the  restored  Jews  will  unlawfully  attempt  to  rebuild  the  old  temple 
in  Palestine  itself,  and  that  this  passage  is  intended  to  reprove  them. 
Yet  in  chap.  Ix.  7,  ViS,  we  read  not  only  of  a  sanctuaiT  to  be  literally 
built  of  the  most  costly  timber,  but  of  an  altar  and  of  victims  to  be  oflered 
on  it ;  all  which  may  be  tortured  into  figures,  it  appears,  provided  that 
the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  be  strictly  expounded  in  a  local  sense. 
With  these  interpretations  and  the  forced  hypotheses  which  they  involve, 
Wo  may  now  compare  another  which  has  been  approved  by  various  judi- 
cious writers,  but  by  none  more  cleiu'l}'  stated  or  more  successfully  main- 
tained than  by  Vitringa.  It  is  simply  this,  that  having  held  up  in  every 
point  of  view  the  tnie  design,  mission,  and  vocation  of  the  church  or 
chosen  people,  its  relation  to  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  the 
causes  which  recpiired  that  the  latter  should  be  stripped  of  their  prcnliar 
l)r!vilege8,  and  the  vot-ution  of  the  Gentiles  as  a  part  of  the  divine  plan 
from  its  origin,  the  Prophet  now  addresses  the  apostate  and  unbelieving 
Jews  at  the  close  of  the  old  dispensation,  who,  instead  of  preparing  for 
tliu  general  extension  of  the  church,  and  the  exchange  of  ciremonial  for 
si)iritual  worship,  wiie  engaged  in  the  rebuilding  and  costly  decoration  of 
the  temple  at  Jerusalc«ii.  The  pride  jmd  interest  in  this  great  public  work, 
felt  not  only  by  the  lierods  but  iiy  all  the  Jews,  is  clear  from  incidental 
statements  of  the  Scriptures  (John  ii.  20,  Matt.  xxiv.  1),  as  well  as  from 
the  ample  and  direct  assertions  of  Josephus.  That  the  nation  should  have 
been  thus  occupied  precisely  at  the  time  when  the  Messiah  came,  is  one  of 
those  agreements  between  prophecy  and  history  which  cannot  be  accounted 
for  except  upon  the  sup[  osition  of  a  providential  and  designed  assimilation. 


Ver.  2.]  ISAIAU  LXVI.  459 

To  the  benefit  of  this  couicidence  the  expositiou  which  has  last  been  given 
is  entitled,  and  by  means  of  it  the  probabilities,  already  great,  may  be  said 
to  be  converted  into  certainties,  or  if  anything  more  be  needed  for  this 
purpose  it  will  be  ail'orded  by  the  minuter  points  of  similarity  which  will  be 
presented  in  the  course  of  the  interpretation.  One  advantage  of  this  ex- 
position is  that  it  accounts  for  the  inference  here  drawn  from  a  doctrine 
which  was  known  to  Solomon  and  publiclj'  announced  by  him  (1  Kings 
viii.  27),  though  described  by  Gesenius  as  unknown  to  the  early  Hebrews, 
who  supposed  that  God  was  really  confined  to  earthly  temples  (1  Chron. 
xxviii.  2,  Ps.  xcix,  5,  cxxxii.  5).  It  may  be  asked,  then,  why  this  truth 
did  not  forbid  the  erection  of  the  temple  at  first,  as  well  as  its  gorgeous 
reconstruction  in  the  time  of  Christ.  The  answer  is,  that  it  was  necessary 
for  a  temporary  purpose,  but  when  this  temporaiy  purpose  was  accompUshed 
it  became  not  only  useless  but  unlawful.  Henceforth  the  worship  was  to 
be  a  spiritual  worship,  the  church  universally  dill'used,  and  the  material 
sanctuary,  as  J.  D.  Michaclis  says,  no  longer  an  earthly  residence  for  God 
but  a  convenient  place  of  meeting  for  his  people. 

2.  And  all  these  my  own  hand  made,  and  all  these  were  (or  are),  saith 
Jehovah;  and  to  thin  one  will  I  look,  to  the  ajflietcd  and  contrite  in  spirit  and 
treiiiblini/  at  my  word.  By  all  these  it  is  universally  admitted  that  we  are 
to  understand  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  of  which  he  claims  to  be  not  only 
the  sovereign,  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  but  the  creator.  The  next  ex- 
pression may  be  differently  understood.  Lowth  suplies  v,  to  me,  on  the 
authority  of  the  Septuagiut  i^iariv  ifMa),  and  adds  that  this  word  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  sense.  But  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  the  verb  would 
not  have  been  expressed  if  this  had  been  the  meaning ;  and  the  clause  as 
Lowth  completes  it  does  not  mean  they  are  mine,  but  they  were  (or  have 
heen)  mine.  The  same  objection  lies  in  some  degree  against  the  explana- 
tion of  -Vn?!  without  Y  as  meaning  they  exist  (i.e.  by  my  creative  power). 
The  reference  is  rather  to  the  time  of  actual  creation,  my  hand  made  them 
and  they  were,  i.e.  began  to  be.  (See  Gen.  i.  3,  Ps.  xxxiii.  9.)  Both 
tenses  of  the  verb  are  combined  to  express  the  same  idea  in  Rev.  iv.  11. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Ewald  shew  the  true  connection  by  translating,  "  my 
hand  made  them  and  so  they  were  or  came  into  existence."  It  is  impor- 
tant to  the  just  interpretation  of  these  verses  to  obsers'e  the  climax  in  them. 
First,  the  temples  made  by  men  are  contrasted  with  the  gi-eat  material 
temple  of  the  universe ;  then  this  is  itself  disparaged  by  Jehovah  as  his 
own  handiwork,  and  still  more  in  comparison  with  the  nobler  temple  of  a 
spiritual  nature,  the  renewed  and  contrite  heart.  (See  chap.  Ivii.  15, 
2  Cor.  vi.  10.)  The  same  condescending  favour  is  expressed  for  the  same 
objects  elsewhere  (Ps.  xxxiv.  19,  cxxxviii.  6).  To  look  to,  is  to  have  regard 
to,  and  implies  both  approbation  and  afiection.  (See  Gen.  iv.  4,  5,  Exod. 
ii.  25,  Num.  xvi.  15,  Judges  vi.  14,  Ps.  xxv.  10.)  The  Septuagint  and 
Vulgate  make  the  last  clause  inten'ogative :  "To  whom  shall  I  look  but'  ? 
&c.  Contrite  or  broken  in  heart  or  spirit  is  a  Scriptural  description  of  the 
subjects  of  divine  grace  in  its  humbling  and  subduing  influences  (chaps. 
Ixi.  1,  Ixv.  14).  The  Septuagint  renders  it  j^ffu'^^/oi',  qaiet,  implnng  patient 
acquiescence  in  the  will  of  God.  The  Ht  refers  to  the  following  descrip- 
tion, like  fl^^T  in  chap.  Ivi.  2.  Gesenius  illustrates  /V  Tin  by  citing  1  Sam. 
iv,  13,  where  Eli  is  described  as  trembling  for  the  ark  of  God  ;  but  Hitzig 
justly  represents  the  cases  as  unlike,  and  explains  the  one  before  us  as  de- 
noting not  solicitude  about  the  word  of  God,  but  an  earnest  inclination  to  it, 


460  ISAIAH  LXVI.  [Veb.  3. 

or  as  Ewald  renders  it  ft  tremhUvff  to  bis  word,  i.  e.  an  caper  and  yet  fearful 
haste  to  execute  his  will.  (Compare  Hosea  iii.  5,  xi.  10,  11.)  The  use 
of  the  phrase  in  historical  prose  bv  Ezra  (ix.  4,  x.  8)  is  probably  bonowed 
from  the  place  before  us. 

3.  Slaying  the  or,  smiting  a  man — xacn/icing  the  sheep,  breaking  a  dog^s 
neck — offering  an  ohlafion,  Mood  of  mrine — making  a  memorial  of  incense, 
blessing  vanity — also  they  have  chosen  their  ways,  and  in  their  abominations 
hos  thiir  soul  dclifjhted.  This  translation,  although  scarcely  Eiiglis-h,  will 
convey  some  idea  of  the  singular  fonn  of  the  original,  and  render  intelligible 
what  is  said  as  to  the  diflerent  constructions  of  the  sentence. — The  first 
clause  consists  of  four  similar  members,  in  each  of  which  are  coupled  a  form 
of  sacrifice  under  the  Mosaic  law  and  an  oftering  which  according  to  that 
law  was  inadmissible  and  even  revolting.  The  ox  and  the  sheep  represent 
the  animal  sacrifices,  the  nn^D  or  meat-ofl'ering  and  the  incense  those  of 
an  unbloody  nature.  The  verbs  connected  with  these  nouns  are  likewise 
all  selected  from  the  technical  vocabulary  of  the  law.  l3nL"  and  nST  both 
originally  signify  to  slay  or  slaughter,  but  are  especially  appUed  to  sacrificial 
slaughter  in  the  Pentateuch.  <^<y!^.  is  the  participle  of  a  verb  which  means  to 
cause  to  ascend,  and  in  the  language  of  the  ritual,  upon  the  altar.  ">'??'? 
is  another,  of  obscurer  origin  and  strict  signification,  though  its  use  and  ap- 
j'lication  are  as  clear  as  any  of  the  rest.  The  modern  writers  commonly 
derive  it  from  the  noun  n^2TX  the  technical  name  of  a  certain  kind  of  offer- 
ing, especially  of  incense  (Lev.  xxiv.  7),  with  or  without  other  vegetable 
substances  (Num.  v.  20).  It  seems  to  mean  mnyiovial,  and  is  usually  so 
translated,  and  explained  upon  the  ground  that  the  fumes  of  incense  were 
conceived  of  as  ascending  into  heaven  and  reminding  God  of  the  worshipper. 
The  same  figiire  was  then  transferred  to  prayers  and  other  spiritual  offer- 
ings.— Thus  we  read  in  Acts  x.  4  that  the  angel  said  to  Cornelius,  thy 
])rayers  and  thine  alms  are  come  up  before  God  for  a  memorial  si;  /jLvrtfio- 
rv^cv,  the  very  phrase  employed  by  the  Septuagint  in  the  case  before  us. 
The  verb  then  means  to  offer  this  oblation,  but  may  be  considered  as  ex- 
pressing more  directly  the  recalling  of  the  worshipper  to  God's  remembrance, 
as  it  literally  means  to  remind.  Ikung  also  used  in  the  sense  of  mention- 
ing, it  is  so  understood  here  by  Luther,  while  the  Vulgate  gives  it  the 
nietming  of  its  primitive,  remembering. — Smiting  has  here,  as  often  else- 
where, the  emphatic  sense  of  wounding  mortallv  or  killing  (Gen.  iv.  15, 
Exod.  ii.  12,  Josh.  xx.  5,  1  Sam.  xvii.  20).  ^l^j)  (from  ^y,  (he  reck)  is  a 
technical  term  used  in  the  law  to  denote  the  breaking  of  the  neck  of  unclean 
animals  when  not  redeemed  from  consecration  to  Jehovah  (PiXod.  xiii.  13, 
])eut.  xxi.  4).  It  expresses,  therefore,  a  peculiar  mode  of  killing.  The 
dog  has  ever  been  regarded  in  the  east  as  peculiarly  unclean,  and  in  that 
!i,'bt  is  coupled  with  the  swine  not  only  in  the  Bible  (Mat.  vii.  (I,  2  Peter 
ii.  22),  but  by  Horace,  who  twice  names  dog  and  swine  together  as  the 
vilest  animals.  Sicine's  blond  alone  is  without  a  verb  to  govern  it,  which 
liowth  thinks  a  defect  in  the  existing  text,  while  Hit/.ig  ascribes  it  to  the 
haste  of  composition.  Bochart  supplies  eating,  but  Vitringa  properly  objects 
that  all  the  rest  relates  to  sacrifice.  The  simplest  course  is  to  repeat  the 
leading  verb  of  the  same  member. — |1K  is  commonly  supposed  to  moan  an 
idol,  as  it  does  in  a  few  places  ;  but  it  is  better  to  retain  its  generic  sense, 
as  more  expressive.  This  is  by  some  understood  U)  bo  vanity,  nonentity, 
or  worthlessncRS,  as  attributes  of  idols  ;  by  others,  injustice  or  iniquity  in 
general.  The  whole  phrase  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  blessing  (i.e. 
praising  or  worshipping)  an  idd,  or  as  llitzig  thinks,  saluting  it  by  kissing 


Yer.  4.] 


ISAIAH  LX VI.  401 


(1  Kin^s  xix    18,  Job  xxxi.  27) ;  but  Luther  gives  it  the  general  sense 
oipra-Jinr,  wickedness,  an  act  to  Avhich  he  supposes  that  of  men'wnmrf  in- 
cense io  be  likened,  while  Knobel  understands  px  adverbially,  and  the  phrase 
as  meanin-  one  who  worships  God  unlawfully  or  wickedly  ;  but  this  would 
be  compar"in«  a  thing  merely  with  itself,  and  as   all  the  other  secondary 
phrases  denote  rites  of  worship,  it  is  better  so  to  understand  this  likewise. 
Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  several  expressions ;  but  a  question  still  remams 
as  to  their  combination.     The  simplest  syntax  is  to  supply  the  verb  of 
existence,  and  thus  produce  a  series  of  short  propositions.  _  He  that  slays 
an  ox  smites  a  man,  &c.     Lowth  and  Ewald  understand  this  to  mean  that 
the  same  person  who  offers  sacrifices  to  God  in  the  form  prescribed  by  law, 
is  al^^o  -niilty  of  murder  and  idolatry,  a  practice  implying  gross  hypocrisy  as 
well  as'^'ross  corruption.    The  ancient  versions  all  supply  a  particle  of  hke- 
ness— he  that  slavs  an  ox  is  like  one  that  murders  a  man.  &c.     Ihis  is 
adopted  bv  most  of  the  modern  writers,  but  of  late  without  supplying  any- 
thing the  words  being  taken  to  assert  not  mere  resemblance,  but  identity, 
whidi  is  the  strongest  form  of  comparison.     It  is  certainly  more  expressive 
to  say  that  an  offerer  of  cattle  is  a  murderer,  than  to  say  that  he  is  like  one, 
thou.'h  the  latter  may  be,  after  all,  the  real  meanhig      He  is  a  murderer, 
i  e  God  so  esteems  him.     According  to  Lowth  and  Ewald   the  verse  de- 
scribes the  co-existence  of  ritual  formality  with  every  kmd  of  wickedness, 
esneciallv  idolatry,  as  in  the  first  chapter.     Gesenius  objects  that  this  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  when  the  passage  was  written, 
never  dreaming  that  instead  of  presupposing  it  might  pro%^e  it.     His  ow-n 
interpretation,  and  the  common  one,  is,  that  the  passage  relates  not  to  the 
actual  practice   of  the  abominations  mentioned,  but  to  the  practice  ot 
ininuity  in  general,  which  renders  the  most  regular  and  costly  offerings  as 
hateful  to  Jehovah  as  the  most  abominable  rites  of  idolatry.     Among  those 
who  adopt  this  explanation  of  the  sentence  there  is  still  a  difference  as  to 
its  application.    Gesenius  applies  it  to  the  worthlessness  of  ritual  perlorm- 
ances  without  regard  to  moral  duty,  Hitzig  and  Knobel  to  the  worthless- 
ness of  sacrifices  which  might  be  ofiered  at  the  temple  bmlt  m  Babylonia, 
Henderson  to  the  unlawfulness  of  sacrifices  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion  with  particular  reference  to  the  case  of  the  restored  Jews  and  their 
temple  at  Jerusalem.    I  still  regard  Yitringa's  exposition  as  the  most  exact, 
profound,  and  satisfactory,  whether  considered  in  itself,  or  in  relauon  to 
he  whole  preceding  context.     He  agi'ees  with  Gesenius  in  making  the  tcx 
the  "eneral  doctrine  that  sacrifice  is  hateful  in  the  S'ght  of  God  if  ofiered 
in  a^wicked  spirit,  but  wiih  a  special  reference  to  those  who  still  adhered 
to   the   old   sacrifices  alter  the  great  Sacrifice   for  sm  was  come,  and  had 
been  offered  once  for  all.    Thus  understood,  this  verse  extends  to  sacrifices 
that  which  the  foregoing  verses  said  of  the  temple,  after  the  change  of  dis- 

pensa  jons^  h-,7/  choose  their  vexations,  and  their  fear  I  uHl  hriwj  upon 
them;  because  I  called  and  there  uas  no  one  ansirerinf,,  I  spake  and  they  d,d 
not  hear,  and  the,,  did  evil  in  my  eyes,  and  that  uhuhl  dehiht  not  m  they 
chose  The  lar-er  part  of  this  verse,  from  because  to  the  end,  is  repeated 
from 'chap  Ixv.  12,  and  serves  not  only  to  connect  the  passages  as  parts 
of  an  unbroken  composition,  but  also  to  identify  the  subjects  oi  discom-se 
in  the  two  places.  According  to  the  usual  analogy-  of  the  Masoretic  mter- 
nunction,  the  first  words  of  the  verse  before  us  ought  to  be  connected  as  a 
parallel  clause  with  the  last  words  of  ver.  3,  partly  because  each  verse  is 
complete  and  of  the  usual  length  without  the  clause  in  question,  partly 


462  ISAIAH  LXVl.  [Ver.  5. 

because  the  parallelism  is  indicated  by  the  repetition  of  the  D3.  This  repe- 
tition occurs  elsewhere  as  an  equivalent  to  the  (treok  y.ul — y.al,  the  Latin 
et — ct,  and  our  holh — and,  as  in  the  phrase  also  yesterday,  also  to-day  (Exod. 
V.  14).  In  the  case  before  us  it  is  paraphrased  by  some  translators  as  they 
chose,  so  I  choose,  by  others,  as  well  they  as  I  chose ;  but  perhaps  the 
nearest  equivalent  in  Enj^'lish  is,  on  their  j>art  they  chose,  and  on  my  part 
I  choose.  The  obvious  antithesis  between  the  pronoun  of  the  third  and  tirst 
person  precludes  the  supposition  that  a  diflerent  class  of  persons  is  denoted 
by  n^n  D|.  The  common  version  of  D v-vyn  (^dclusiotts)  seems  to  be  founded 
on  a  misconciptidu  of  the  Yulj^ate  il/usiones,  which  was  probably  intended 
to  suggest  the  idea  of  derision,  like  the  i/jLrraiyu.aTa  of  the  Septuagint. 
The  true  sense  of  the  word  here  is  essentially  the  Sfime,  but  somewhat 
stronger,  viz.  annoyances,  vexations,  which  last  is  employed  to  represent 
it  by  Cocceius.  It  is  in  the  cognate  sense  of  petulance  or  caprice,  that  it  is 
used  to  denote  children  in  chap.  iii.  4.  This  etymological  aftiuity  is  wholly 
disregarded,  by  translating  the  word  here  calamities,  with  Lowth,  Gescnius, 
and  others.  Tlieir  fear  is  the  e^•il  which  they  fear,  as  in  Prov.  x.  24,  where 
the  same  idea  is  expressed  almost  in  the  same  words. 

5.  Ih'ar  the  word  of  Jchorah,  ye  that  trctnlle  at  his  unrd.  Your  brethren 
say,  [those)  hatiny  you  and  castiny  you  out  for  nty  name's  sake,  Jehovah  irill 
be  glorified,  and  ice  shall  ynze  uiion  your  joy — and  they  shall  fie  a.diamed. 
Trembling  at  (or  rather  to)  Jehovah's  word  seems  to  mean  reverently  wait- 
ing for  it.  Ye  that  thus  expect  a  message  from  Jehovah,  now  receive  it. 
Yitringa  adheres  strictly  to  the  Masoretic  accents,  which  connect  for  my 
name's  sake  with  what  follows  :  "  Your  brethren  say — those  hating  you  and 
casting  you  out — for  my  name's  sake  Jehovah  shall  be  glorified."  To  this 
construction  there  are  two  objections  :  first,  that  the  same  persons  who  are 
three  times  mentioned  in  the  plural  are  abmptly  made  to  speak  in  the  sin- 
gular, for  my  name's  sake,  an  enallage  which,  although  possible,  is  not  to 
be  assumed  without  necessity ;  and  secondly,  thnt  for  my  name's  s(d{e  is  not 
the  appropriate  expression  of  the  thought  supposed  to  be  intended,  which 
would  rather  be  by  7ny  means.  The  majority  of  later  writers  are  agreed 
in  so  far  departing  from  the  accents  as  to  join  the  phrase  in  question  with 
what  goes  before ;  which  is  the  less  objectionable  here,  as  we  have  seen 
already  in  the  preceding  verses  some  appearance  of  inaccuracy  in  the  ^la- 
sorctic  intcrpuuction.  The  neuter  verb  13?*  is  here  applied  to  God,  as  it  is 
elsewhere  to  men  (Job  xiv.  21)  and  cities  (Ezok.  xxvii.  25),  in  the  sense  of 
being  ylorious  rather  than  ylorified,  which  would  require  a  passive  form. 
It  may  bo  construed  either  as  an  optative  or  future  ;  bat  the  last  is  more 
exact,  and  really  includes  the  other.  All  are  agreed  that  these  two  words 
(nin^  133^)  are  put  into  the  mouth  (tf  the  brethren  before  nienfioned  ;  but 
it  is  made  a  (juestion  whether  the  exact  phrase,  D5rinp:;'5  nij"i31.,  is  spoken 
by  them  likewise.  Piscator,  followed  by  the  English  and  Dutch  ver- 
sions, makes  this  the  language  of  the  Prophet,  and  translates  it,  and  he 
shall  appear  to  your  joy.  Besides  the  doubtful  sense  thus  piit  upon  the 
preposition,  this  translation  really  involves  a  change  of  pointing,  so  as  to 
read  fiNi3  or  a  very  unusual  construction  of  the  participle.  Yitringa  makes 
these  words  the  language  of  a  chorus,  and  supposes  them  to  mean,  "  Put 
we  shall  see  your  joy  and  they  shall  be  ashamed."  The  modern  writers  who 
refer  ^PP',  as  we  have  seen,  to  God  himself,  are  obliged  to  make  n{<"i3  the 
language  of  another  speaker ;  unless  they  assume  a  pluralis  m'ljestaficus, 
as  some  old  Jewish  writers  did,  according  to  Aben  Ezra,  which  they  do  by 
adding  it  to  what  immediately  precedes :  "  Your  brethren  say,  Jehovah  shall 


Yer.  C]  ISAIAH  LXVI.  463 

be  glorifierl  and  we  shall  see  your  happiness  ;"  the  verb  HK^,  as  nsual  when 
followed  b)'  the  preposition  3,  meaning  to  view  or  gazo  at  with  strong  foelinf^, 
and  in  this  case  with  delight.  This  construction  is  unanimously  sanctioned 
by  the  latest  German  writers,  and  is  in  itself  much  simpler  and  more  natural 
than  any  other.  As  to  the  application  of  the  verse  there  is  the  usual  diver- 
sity of  judgment.  Jarchi  and  Abarbanel  apply  it  to  the  treatment  of  the 
Jews  in  their  present  exile  by  the  ^Mohammedans  and  Romans,  called  their 
brethren  because  descendants  of  Ishmael  and  Esau.  Gesenius  seems  to 
understand  it  as  relating  to  the  scornful  treatment  of  the  exiled  Jews  in 
Babylon  by  Iheir  heathen  enemies.  luiobel  denies  that  the  latter  would  be 
spoken  of  as  brethren,  and  applies  it  to  the  treatment  of  the  pious  Jews  by 
their  idolatrous  countrymen.  Hitzig  questions  even  this  application  of 
brethren,  and  explains  the  verse  of  the  contempt  with  which  the  exiles  who 
were  willing  to  return  were  treated  by  the  unbelievers  who  remained  behind. 
But  how  could  those  who  thus  remained  be  said  to  cast  out  such  as  insisted 
on  returning  ?  The  phrase  may  posssibly  be  tnken  in  the  vague  sense  of 
despising  or  treating  with  contempt ;  but  this  diluted  explanation,  though 
admissible  in  case  of  necessity,  cannot  take  precedence  of  the  strict  one,  or 
of  the  interpretation  which  involves  it.  Vitringa,  although  rather  infelicitous 
in  his  construction  and  translation  of  the  sentence,  has  excelled  all  other 
writers  in  his  exhibition  of  its  general  import.  He  applies  it,  in  accordance 
with  his  previous  hypothesis,  to  the  rejection  of  the  first  Christian  converts 
by  the  unbelieving  Jews  :  Hear  the  word  (or  promise)  of  Jehovah,  ye  that 
wait  for  it  with  trembling  confidence :  your  brethren  (the  unconverted 
Jews)  who  hate  you  and  ca?t  you  out  for  my  name's  sake,  have  said  (in  so 
doing),  "  Jehovah  will  be  glorious  (or  glorify  himself  in  your  behalf  no 
doubt),  and  we  shall  witness  your  salvation  "  (a  bitter  irony  like  that  in 
chap.  V.  19)  ;  but  they  (who  thus  speak)  shall  themselves  be  confounded 
(by  beholding  what  they  now  consider  so  incredible).  Besides  the  clearness 
and  coherence  of  this  exposition  in  itself  considered,  and  its  perfect  har- 
mony with  what  wo  have  arrived  at  as  the  true  sense  of  the  whole  forego- 
ing context,  it  is  strongly  recommended  by  remarkable  coincidences  with 
the  New  Testament,  some  of  which  Vitringa  specifies.  That  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  might  still  be  called  the  brethren  of  the  converts,  if  it  needed 
either  proof  or  illustration,  might  derive  it  from  Paul's  mode  of  address  to 
them  in  Acts  xxii.  1,  and  of  reference  to  them  in  Rom.  ix.  3.  The  phrase 
those  hating  you  may  be  compared  with  John  xv,  18,  xvii.  14  ;  Mat.  x.  22; 
1  Thes.  ii.  14  ;  and  casting  you  out  with  John  xvi,  2,  and  Matthew 
xviii.  17  ;  for  my  name's  sake  with  Mat.  xxiv.  10  ;  to  which  may  be  added 
the  interesting  fact  that  the  verb  n^J  and  its  derivatives  are  used  to  this  day 
by  the  Jew's  in  reference  to  excommunication.  Thus  understood  the  verse 
is  an  assm-ance  to  the  chosen  remnant  in  whom  the  true  Israel  was  to  be 
perpetuated,  that  although  their  unbelieving  countrymen  might  cast  them 
out  wuth  scorn  and  hatred  for  a  time,  their  spite  should  soon  be  utterl}'  con- 
founded. The  great  truth  involved  in  the  change  of  dispensations  may  be 
signally  developed  and  exemplified  hereafter,  as  Henderson  infers  from  this 
passage  that  it  will  be,  in  the  case  of  the  restored  Jews  who  receive  the 
doctrine  of  the  gospel  and  their  brethren  who  persist  in  endeavouring  to 
establish  the  old  ritual ;  but  wq  dare  not  abandon  the  fulfilment  which 
has  actually  taken  place  for  the  sake  of  one  which  may  never  happen,  since 
we  have  not  been  able  thus  far  to  discover  any  clear  prediction  of  it. 

6.  A  voice  of  tumult  from  the  city  !     A  voice  from  the  temple  !     The  voice 
of  Jehovah,  reiidering  requital  to  his  enemies/     The  Hebrew  word  IIXK*  is 


4G4  ISAIAH  LXVI.  [Ver.  G. 

never  applied  elsewhere  to  a  joyful  cry  or  a  crj'  of  lamentation,  but  to  the 
tumult  of  war,  the  rushing  sound  of  armies  and  the  shock  of  battle,  in 
which  sense  it  is  repeatedly  employed  by  Isaiah.  The  enemies  here  men- 
tioned must  of  course  bo  those  who  had  just  been  described  as  the  de- 
spisers  and  persecutors  of  their  brethren,  and  whose  confusion  after  being 
threatened  generally  in  the  verse  preceding  is  graphically  represented  in 
detail.  Even  Abcn  Ezra  says,  these  enemies  of  God  are  those  who  cast 
the  others  out.  The  description  therefore  cannot  without  violence  be 
understood  of  foreign  or  external  enemies.  These  data  furnished  by  usage 
and  the  context  will  enable  us  to  estimate  the  various  interpretations  of  the 
verse  before  us.  If  what  has  just  been  stated  be  correct,  the  noise  heard 
by  the  Prophet  cannot  be  the  rejoicing  of  the  Maccabees  and  their  ad- 
herents when  the  temple  was  evacuated  by  Autiochus,  as  Grotius  imagines ; 
nor  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  by  the  apostles  beginning  at  Jerusalam,  as 
Junius  and  Tremellius  think  ;  nor  a  voice  calling  for  vengeance  on  the 
Romans,  according  to  Jarchi ;  nor  the  blasphemies  of  the  heathen,  accord- 
ing to  Abarbauel.  Nor  can  the  words  if  rightly  understood  as  meaning 
the  tumult  of  war,  be  applied  to  the  destruction  of  Gog  and  Magog,  as  by 
Kimchi;  or  to  any  other  external  enemies,  as  by  the  modern  Germans.  These 
indeed  are  not  a  little  puzzled  to  explain  the  verse  in  any  consistency  with 
their  hypotheses.  Gesenius  admits  that  there  is  so  far  a  difficulty  as  the 
anti-theocratic  party  stayed  behind  in  Babylon,  and  queries  whether  the 
Prophet  may  not  nave  suspected  many  such  to  go  up  in  the  hope  of 
•worldly  advantages,  and  there  be  smitten  by  the  divine  judgments  !  Maurer 
as  usual  sees  no  difficulty  in  the  case,  because  Jehovah  is  described  as 
punishing  the  wicked  Jews  not  in  Jenisalem,  but  from  it.  Hitzig  makes 
it  a  description  of  the  general  judgment  foretold  by  Joel,  when  all  the 
nations  should  be  judged  at  Jerusalem  (Joel  iv.  2).  Knobel  confidently 
adds  that  the  Prophet  expected  this  great  judgment  to  fall  especially  upon 
the  Babylonians,  whom  Cyrus  had  not  punished  sufficiently,  and  with  them 
on  the  idolatrous  exiles.  Umbreit,  who  seems  to  float  in  mid-air  between 
faith  and  unbelief  in  his  intei-pretation  of  this  passage,  makes  the  noise  a 
joyful  noise,  and  separates  it  from  Jehovah's  voice  bringing  vengeance  to 
his  external  enemies. — The  only  Christian  interpreter  that  need  be  quoted 
here  is  Henderson,  who  says  that  "  by  a  remarkable  and  astounding  inter- 
position of  Jehovah  the  scheme  of  the  Jews  shall  be  defeated  ;  the  very 
temple  which  tliey  shall  be  in  the  act  of  erecting  shall  be  the  scene  of 
judgment."  Then  adopting  the  groundless  notion  of  the  German  writers, 
that  the  voice  of  Jehovah  nlways  means  thunder,  he  adds  that  "in  all  pro- 
bability the  projected  temple  will  be  destroyed  by  lightning."  This  ia 
certainly  sufficiently  specific,  but  by  no  means  so  entitled  to  belief  as  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  which  has  already  taken  place.  In  strict  ad- 
herence to  the  usage  of  the  words  and  to  requisitions  of  the  context  both 
immediate  and  remote,  the  verso  may  be  applied  to  the  giving  up  of  Zion 
and  the  temple  to  its  enemies,  as  a  final  demonstration  that  the  old  economy 
was  at  an  end,  and  that  the  sins  of  Israel  were  now  to  be  visited  on  that 
generation.  The  assailants  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  Jews  were  now  no 
longer  those  of  God  himself,  but  rather  chosen  instruments  to  execute  his 
vengeance  on  his  enemies,  the  unbelie^•ing  Jews  themselves.  Vitringa 
goes  too  far  when  he  restricts  the  tumult  hero  described  to  the  noise  actu- 
ally made  by  the  Romans  in  the  taking  of  Jerusalem. — It  rather  compre- 
hends the  whole  confusion  of  the  siege  and  conquest,  and  a  better  com- 
mentary on  this  brief  but  grand  prediction  cannot  be  desired  than  that 


Ver.  7.^'  ISAIAH  IX  VI.  465 

afforded  by  Joseplans  in  his  narrative  of  what  may  be  regarded  as  not  only 
the  most  dreadful  siege  on  record,  but  in  some  respects  the  most  subHme 
and  critical  conjuncture  in  all  history,  because  coincident  with  the  transition 
from  the  abrogated  system  of  the  old  economy  to  the  acknowledged  intro- 
duction of  the  new,  a  change  of  infinitely  more  extensive  influence  on 
human  character  and  destiny  than  many  philosophical  historians  have  been 
willing  to  admit,  or  even  able  to  discover. 

7.  Before  she  travailed  she  brought  forth,  before  her  pain  came  she  was 
delivered  of  a  male.  All  interpreters  agree  that  the  mother  here  described 
is  Zion,  that  the  figure  is  essentially  the  same  as  in  chap.  xlix.  21,  and 
that  in  both  cases  an  increase  of  numbers  is  represented  as  a  birth,  while 
in  that  before  us  the  additional  idea  of  suddenness  is  expressed  by  the 
figure  of  an  unexpected  birth.  The  difference  between  the  cases  is  that  in 
the  other  a  plurality  of  children  is  described,  while  in  this  the  whole  increase 
is  represented  in  the  aggregate  as  a  single  birth.  As  to  the  specification  of 
the  sex,  some  regard  it  as  a  mere  illustration  of  the  oriental  predilection  for 
male  children,  not  intended  to  have  any  special  emphasis,  while  others  make 
it  significant  of  strength  as  well  as  numbers  in  the  increase  of  the  people. 
As  to  the  application  of  the  passage,  there  is  nothing  in  the  terms  employed 
which  can  determine  it,  but  it  must  follow  the  sense  put  upon  the  foregoing 
context  or  the  general  hypothesis  of  the  interpreter.  Those  who  see  no- 
thing in  these  chapters  but  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  explain 
this  verse  as  meaning  simply  that  the  joyful  return  of  the  exiles  to  the  long 
forsaken  city  would  be  like  an  unexpected  birth  to  a  childless  mother. 
According  to  Henderson,  "  the  language  forcibly  expresses  the  sudden  and 
unexpected  reproduction  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  their  own  land  in  the  latter 
day  ;  their  future  recovery  is  the  object  of  the  divine  purpose,  and  every 
providential  arrangement  shall  be  made  for  effecting  it ;  yet  the  event  shall 
be  unexpectedly  sudden."  In  both  these  cases  there  is  an  accommodation 
of  the  passage  to  the  exegetical  hypothesis,  without  any  attempt  to  shew 
that  the  latter  derives  confirmation  from  it.  In  both  cases,  too,  there  is  a 
certain  abruptness  in  the  transition  from  the  judgment  threatened  in  the 
preceding  verse  to  the  promise  here  recorded.  Knobel  somewhat  awkwardly 
describes  the  general  judgment  on  the  nations  at  Jerusalem,  including 
specially  the  Babylonians  and  apostate  Jews,  as  being  followed  by  the 
speedy  return  of  the  believing  exiles.  Henderson,  in  lilce  manner,  makes 
the  restoration yb//o?t'  the  destruction  of  the  projected  temple  by  lightning, 
and  3'et  supposes  it  to  be  described  as  unexpectedly  sudden.  Such  retro- 
gressions in  the  order  of  events  are  not  without  example,  but  they  certainly 
give  no  advantage  to  the  theories  in  which  they  are  involved  over  such  as 
have  no  need  of  them.  Of  this  description  is  Yitringa's  doctrine  that  the 
passage  has  respect  to  the  vocation  of  the  Gentiles  as  immediately  conse- 
quent upon  the  excision  of  the  Jews,  a  sequence  of  events  which  is  con- 
tinually held  up  to  view  in  the  New  Testament  history.  (Luke  xxiv.  47  ; 
Acts  iii.  20,  xiii.  4G,  xviii.  6 ;  Rom.  i.  16,  ii.  10.)  The  only  questionable 
point  in  his  interpretation  is  his  pressing  the  mere  letter  of  the  metaphor 
too  far  by  representing  the  Gentiles  or  the  Gentile  churches  as  the  male 
child  of  which  the  Apostolic  Church  was  unexpectedly  delivered.  It  is 
pei-fectly  sufficient,  and  in  better  taste,  to  understand  the  parturition  as  a 
figure  for  the  whole  eventual  crisis  of  the  change  of  dispensations,  and  the 
consequent  change  in  the  condition  of  the  church.  This  indestructible 
ideal  person,  when  she  might  have  seemed  to  be  reduced  to  nothing  by  the 

VOL.  II.  G  g 


460  ISAIAU  LXVI.  [Vek.  8-10. 

defectiou  of  the  uatunil  Israel,  is  vastly  aud  suddtuly  augmented  by  the 
iutroduction  of  the  Gentiles,  a  succession  of  events  which  is  here  most 
appropriately  represented  as  the  birth  of  a  male  child  without  the  pains  of 
childbirth. 

8.  Who  hath  heard  such  a  thing';'  nho  hath  seen  svch  things?  Shall  a 
land  be  brought  forth  in  one  day,  or  fthall  a  nation  be  borti  at  once?  For 
Zion  hath  travailed,  she  hath  also  brought  forth  her  children.  Tliis  verso,  in 
the  form  of  pointed  interro{:;atioii,  represents  the  event  previously  mentioned 
as  without  example.  The  t£ru)s  of  the  sentence  are  exceedingly  appropriate 
both  to  the  return  from  Babylon  and  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews, 
but  admit  at  the  same  time  of  a  wider  application  to  the  change  of  economy, 
the  birth  of  the  church  of  the  New  Testament.  ]*^^  appeal's  to  be  construed 
as  a  masculine,  because  it  is  put  for  the  inhabitants,  as  in  chaps,  ix.  18, 
xxvi.  18  (compare  Judges  xviii.  30) ;  or  the  verb  may  take  that  form 
according  to  the  usual  licence  when  the  object  follows,  as  in  Gen.  xiii.  0  ; 
Psalm  cv.  30. — The  causative  sense  given  to  this  verb  in  the  English  and 
some  other  versions  is  not  approved  by  the  later  lexicographers,  who  make 
?nV  a  simple  passive.  Beck's  application  of  the  phrase  to  the  creation  of 
the  earth  is  forbidden  by  the  parallel  tenu  ^13. — To  avoid  the  apparent  con- 
tradiction between  this  and  the  foregoing  verse  as  to  the  pains  of  childbirth, 
Bome  explain  rn?'  D3  n?n  O  to  mean,  "  scarcely  had  she  travailed  when  she 
brought  forth,"  which  is  a  forced  construction.  Hitzig  attains  the  same 
end  by  making  sons  the  object  of  both  verbs,  and  making  both  synonymous. 
Both  these  expedients  are  unnecessarj',  as  the  reference  is  merely  to  the 
short  time  required  for  the  birth,  as  if  he  had  said,  she  has  (already) 
travailed,  she  has  also  brought  forth. 

9.  Shall  I  bring  to  the  birth  and  not  cause  to  bring  forth?  sailh  Jehovah. 
Or  am  I  the  one  causing  to  bring  forth,  and  shall  I  shut  up?  saith  thg  God. 
Without  pretending  to  enumerate  the  various  explanations  of  this  verse, 
some  of  which  are  as  disgusting  as  absurd,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  adduce  as 
specimens  Jerome's  inteiiiretation,  which  supposes  him  to  ask  whether  he 
who  causes  others  to  bring  forth  shall  not  bring  forth  himself;  and  that  of 
Cocceius,  whether  he  who  causes  others  to  bring  forth  shall  not  cause  Zion 
to  do  so  likewise.  The  sense  now  put  upon  the  tigure  by  the  general  con- 
sent of  interpreters  is,  that  he  who  begins  the  work  may  be  expected  to 
accomplish  it,  to  be  both  its  author  and  its  finisher.  The  reason  why  it  is 
expressed  in  this  form  is  not  any  peculiar  adaptation  or  expressiveness  in 
these  unusual  metaphors,  but  simply  that  the  increase  of  the  church  had 
been  already  represented  as  a  birth,  and  the  additional  ideas  of  the  writer 
are  expressed  without  a  change  of  figure.  The  precise  connection  of  the 
verse  with  that  before  it  seems  to  be  that  it  extenuates  the  wonder  which 
had  been  described  by  representing  it  as  something  which  was  to  bo 
expected  in  the  case  supposed.  That  is  to  say,  if  God  had  undertaken  to 
supply  the  place  of  what  his  church  had  lost  by  new  accessions,  the  extent 
and  suddenness  of  the  efl'ect  could  not  be  matters  of  surprise.  On  the 
contrary',  it  would  have  been  indeed  surprising,  if  he  who  began  the  change 
had  stopped  it  short,  and  interfered  for  the  prevention  of  his  own  designs. 
— On  the  metaphor  of  this  verse  and  the  one  preceding,  compare  chap. 
xxvi.  18  ;  on  the  peculiar  use  of  "IV^  in  this  application,  Gen.  xvi.  2, 
IX.  18. 

10.  Rejoice  ye  uifh  Jerusalem  and  exult  in  her,  all  that  lore  her;  be  glad 
with  her  uifh  gladness,  all  those  mourning  for  her.  This  is  nn  indireet  pro- 
diction  of  the  joyful  change  awaiting  Zion,  clothed  in  the  form  of  a  command 


Ver.  11,  12.]  ISAIAH  LX  VI.  407 

or  imitation  to  her  friends  to  rejoice  with  her.  The  expression  n3  -"1^*3  may 
either  have  the  same  sense,  vi/.  that  of  s}Tnpathetic  joy,  or  it  may  mean 
rejoice  in  her  or  lo'thin  her  in  a  local  sense,  or  in  her  as  the  object  of  your  joy, 
all  which  constructions  are  gi-ammatical  and  justihable  by  usage.  Diflferent 
interpreters,  according  to  their  various  exegetical  hypotheses,  explain  this 
as  a  prophecy  of  Israel's  ancient  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  exile,  or 
of  their  future  restoration  from  the  present  exile  and  dispersion,  or  of  the 
glorious  enlargement  of  the  church  after  the  excision  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews,  and  the  throes  of  that  great  crisis  in  which  old  things  passed  away 
and  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  came  into  existence ;  which  last 
I  believe  to  be  the  true  sense,  for  reasons  which  have  been  already  fully 
stated. 

11.  TTiat  ye  ma\j  such  and  he  satisfied  from  the  breast  of  her  consolations, 
that  xje  may  milk  out  and  enjoy  yourselves,  from  the  fulness  (or  the  full  breast) 
of  her  glory.  Those  who  have  sympathized  with  Zion  in  her  joys  and 
sorrows  shall  partake  of  her  abundance  and  her  glory.  The  figure  of  a 
mother  is  continu^'d,  but  beautifully  varied.  The  Targum  takes  lb'  in  its 
usual  sense  of  spoil  or  plunder ;  but  see  above,  on  chap.  Ix.  16.  Hende- 
wcrk,  with  some  of  the  older  writers,  reads  because  instead  of  so  that  or  in 
order  that ;  but  this  is  a  needless  substitution  of  a  meaning  rare  and  doubt- 
ful at  the  best.  Suck  and  he  satisfied,  milk  out  and  enjoy  yourselves,  may 
be  regarded  as  examples  of  hendiadys,  meaning,  suck  to  satiety,  and  milk 
out  tcith  delight ;  but  no  such  change  in  the  form  of  the  translation  is 
required  or  admissible.  The  Targum  explains  TU  as  meaning  loine ;  Lowth 
proposes  to  read  PT  provision,  but  there  is  no  such  word;  Cocceius  trans- 
lates it  animals,  as  in  Ps.  1.  11,  Ixxx.  14.,  which  makes  no  sense;  Jerome 
and  Symmachus  make  it  mean  variety  {pmnimoda) ;  but  the  modern 
writers  are  agreed  that  it  originally  signifies  radiation  or  a  radiating  motion, 
then  the  radiating  How  of  milk  or  other  liquids,  and  then  fulness,  or  the 
full  breast  whence  the  radiation  flows.  Glory  includes  wealth  or  abundance, 
but  much  more,  viz.  all  visible  superiority  or  excellence. 

12.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah,  Behold  I  am  extending  to  her  peace  like  a 
river,  aud  like  an  overfloning  stream  the  glory  of  nations  ;  and  ye  shall  suck; 
on  the  side  shall  ye  be  borne,  and  on  the  knees  shall  ye  be  dandled.     As 

^N  is  sometimes  interchanged  with  ?y,  Vitringa  here  translates  extending 
over,  i.  e.  so  as  to  cover  or  submerge.  But  the  force  and  beauty  of  the 
Pi'ophet's  figure  are  secured,  without  any  departure  from  the  ordinaiy  usage, 
by  supposing  it  to  represent  a  river  suddenly  or  gradually  widening  its 
channel  or  its  flow  until  it  reaches  to  a  certain  spot,  its  actual  submersion 
being  not  expressed  though  it  may  be  imputed.  That  the  particle  retains 
its  proper  meaning  may  be  argued  from  the  use  of  the  entire  phrase  in 
Gen.  xxxix.  21.     Another  suggestion  of  Vitringa,  which  has  been  rejected 

by  the  later  writers,  is  that  "in?  and  ?n3  here  denote  specifically  the  Eu- 
phrates and  the  Nile,  which  last  he  regards  as  a  derivative  of  the  Hebrew 
word.  But  the  incorrectness  of  this  etymology,  the  absence  of  the  article 
which  elsewhere  makes  the  nouns  specific,  and  the  uselessness  of  this  sup- 
position to  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  passage,  all  conspire  to  condemn  it. 
Peace  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its  frequent  sense  of  welfare  or  prosperity. 
(See  above,  on  chap,  xlviii.  18.)  The  words  and  ye  shall  suck  are  added 
to  announce  a  resumption  of  the  figure  of  the  foregoing  verse.  The  Tar- 
gum and  Vulgate  read  "Iti'  ?V  instead  of  "IV  ?y,  while  Houbigant  and  Lowth 
insert  the  former  after  suck  (ye  shall  suck  at  the  breast,  ye  shall  be  carried 


468  ISAIAH  LXVI.  [Yer.  13,  14. 

at  the  side).  Equally  gratuitous  is  the  addition  of  the  pronoun  by  Hen- 
derson (ye  shall  suck  them),  and  Hendewerk  (ye  sluiU  suck  it),  and 
Gesenius's  paraphrase  [zum  Gciiuss).  For  the  sense  of  ^V  ^V,  see  above, 
on  chap.  Ix.  4,  and  compare  chap.  xlix.  22.  The  objects  of  address  in 
this  verse  are  tbe  sons  of  Zion,  to  be  gathered  from  all  nations. 

13.  As  a  man  whom  his  mother  comforlelh,  ao  will  I  cnm/ort  you,  and  in 
Jeruy-alem  shall  ye  he  comforted.  Du  Wette's  version,  "  as  a  man  who 
comforts  his  mother"  {der  seiyte  'Mutter  triistet)  is  so  utterly  at  variance 
with  the  form  of  the  original,  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  an  inadvertence, 
or  perhaps  as  an  error  of  the  press.  The  image,  xlviii.  18,  is  essentially 
the  same  with  that  in  chap.  xlix.  15,  but  with  a  striking  variation.  The 
English  Version,  which  in  multitudes  of  cases  inserts  man  where  the 
original  expression  is  indefinite,  translating  oldilg,  for  example,  always  no 
man,  here  reverses  the  process,  and  dilutes  a  man  to  one.  The  same 
liberty  is  taken  by  many  other  versions,  old  and  new,  occasioned  no  doubt 
by  a  feeling  of  the  incongruity  of  making  a  full-grown  man  the  subject  of 
maternal  consolations.  The  difficulty  might,  if  it  were  necessary,  be 
avoided  by  explaining  C"'X  to  mean  a  man-child,  as  it  does  in  Gen.  iv.  1, 
1  Sam.  i.  11,  and  in  many  other  cases.  But  the  truth  is  that  the  solecism, 
which  has  been  so  carefully  expunged  by  these  translators,  is  an  exquisite 
trait  of  patriarchal  manners,  in  their  primitive  simplicity.  Compare  Gen. 
xxiv.  G7,  Judges  xvii.  2,  1  Kings  ii.  19,  20,  and  the  affecting  scenes 
between  Thetis  and  Achilles  in  the  Iliad.  Of  the  modern  writers,  Umbreit 
alone  does  justice  to  this  beautiful  allusion,  not  only  by  a  strict  translation, 
but  by  adding  as  a  gloss,  "  with  the  consolation  of  a  mother  who,  as  no 
other  can,  soothes  the  ruflled  spirit  of  a  man  {dcs  Maunt's)."  Equally 
characteristic  is  the  brief  remark  of  Hitzig,  that  "  the  t''5<  is  not  well 
chosen." — Lowth  in  another  respect  shews  what  would  now  be  thought 
a  morbid  distaste  for  simplicity  by  changing  the  passive,  ye  shall  he  com- 
forted into  ye  shall  receive  consolation,  in  order  to  avoid  a  repetition  which 
to  any  unsophisticated  ear  is  charming. — The  in  Jerusalem  suggests  the 
only  means  by  which  these  blessings  are  to  be  secured,  viz.  a  union  of 
aflection  and  of  interest  with  the  Israel  of  God,  to  whom  alone  they  are 
promised. 

14.  And  ye  shall  see,  and  your  heart  shall  leap  {uith  joy),  and  your 
hones  like  grass  shall  sprout,  and  the  hand  of  Jehovah  shall  he  known  to  his 
servants,  and  he  shall  he  indignant  at  his  enemies.  The  object  of  address 
still  continues  to  be  those  who  had  loved  Zion,  and  had  mourned  for  her, 
and  whom  God  had  promised  to  comfort  in  Jerusalem.  They  arc  here 
assured  that  they  shall  see  for  themselves  the  fulfilment  of  these  promises. 
— Ewald  gives  t;'t'  its  primary  sense  of  bounding,  leaping,  which  agrees 
well  with  the  strong  figiire  in  the  next  clause,  where  the  bones,  as  the  seat 
of  strength  or  the  framework  of  the  body,  are  compared  with  springing 
herbage  to  denote  their  freshness  and  vigour.  Here  again  Ewald  makes 
the  language  more  expressive  by  translating  hecome  green  like  the  young 
grass,  which,  howevt-r,  is  a  paraphrase  and  not  an  exact  version,  as  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  verb  is  to  burst  out  or  i)ut  forth.  (For 
the  figure,  compare  chaps,  xxvii.  0,  Iviii.  11,  Job  xxi.  24,  Prov.  iii.  8, 
XV.  30,  Ps.  li.  10,  and  c  converso  Ps.  vi.  3,  xxii.  15,  xxxi.  11.)  There  is 
no  need  of  supposing  with  Hitzig  that  the  human  frame  is  likened  to  a 
tree  of  which  the  bones  are  the  branches,  and  the  muscles,  flesh,  and  skin, 
the  leaves.  (See  Job.  x.  11.) — The  hand  of  God  is  known  when  his  power 
is  recognised  as  the  cause  of  any  given  effect.     Gescnius  makes  ^Y}^}  the 


Ver.  15.]  ISAIAH  LXVL  469 

passive  of  y*!lin  and  n^  the  sign  of  the  second  accusative  (it  is  made 
known  his  servants,  i.  e.  to  his  sen^ants).  But  Hitzig  explains  the  tirst 
word  as  the  passive  of  Vy^  and  ri^  as  a  preposition  equivalent  to  ^V  in 

chap.  liii.  1,  and  to  \W?  in  Ezek.  xxxviii.  23,  where  the  same  passive 
verb  is  used.  The  English  Version  follows  Luther  in  translating  CpT  as 
a  noun,  which  never  has  this  form,  however,  out  of  pause.  It  is  correctly 
explained  by  Eben  Ezra  as  a  verb  with  Vav  conversive.  The  n^  may  bo 
either  the  objective  particle,  as  this  verb  usually  governs  the  accusative, 
or  a  preposition  equivalent  to  ^V  D^T  in  Dan,  xi.  30,  and  to  our  expression, 
he  is  angrij  with  another.  Noyes  makes  this  verb  agree  with  hand  ;  which 
would  be  ungrammatical,  as  l^is  feminine.  The  whole  clause  is  omitted 
in  Hendewerk's  translation.  It  is  important  as  atibrding  a  transition  from 
the  promise  to  the  threatening,  in  accordance  with  the  Prophet's  constant 
practice  of  presenting  the  salvation  of  God's  people  as  coincident  and 
simultaneous  with  the  destruction  of  his  enemies. 

15.  For  lo,  Jehovah  in  fire  will  come,  and  like  the  whirlwind  his  chariots, 
to  appease  in  /ury  his  amjer,  and  his  rebuke  in  flames  of  fire.  This  is  an 
ampUfication  of  the  brief  phrase  at  the  end  of  ver.  1-4.  Lowth  reads  as  a 
fire,  with  the  Septuagint  version,  which  is  probably  a  mere  inadvertence. 
Luther  and  others  translate  toithfire  (sec  ver.  IG),  but  the  modern  writers 
generally  in  Jire,  that  is,  enveloped  and  suiTouuded  by  it,  as  on  Sinai. 
(See  above,  chap.  xxix.  6,  xxx.  27,  30,  and  compare  Ps.  1.  3.)— The  second 
clause  is  repeated  in  Jer.  iv.  13.  The  points  of  comparison  are  swiftness 
and  violence.  The  allusion  is  to  the  two-wheeled  chariots  of  ancient  war- 
fare. Vitringa  supposes  angels  to  be  meant,  on  the  authority  of  Ps.  Ixviii.  18. 
(Compare  Ps.  xviii.  11.)  Hendewerk  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  chariots 
and  horses  of  fire,  mentioned  2  Kings  ii.  11,  vi.  17.  (Compare  Hab.  iii.  8.) 
The  English  Version  supplies  with  before  his  chariots,  but  this  is  forbidden 
by  the  order  of  the  words  in  Hebrew,  and  unnecessaiy,  as  the  chariots  may 
be  constnied  either  with  shall  come  or  with  the  sul-stantive  verb  are  or  shall 
&(?.— Ewald  agrees  with  the  older  writers  who  give  ^'''^^  the  sense  of  ren- 
dering, returning,  recompensing,  which  it  has  in  Ps.  liv.  7,  Hosea  xii.  15, 
and  in  which  it  is  construed  with  vengeance  in  Deut.  xxxii.  41, 43.  Henderson 
prefers  the  sense  of  causing  to  return,  implying  repetition  and  severity. 
Gesenius  adheres  to  the  usage  of  this  very  verb  and  noun  in  Ps.  Ixxviii.  38, 
and  Job  ix.  13  (compare  Gen.  xxvii.  44,  45),  where  it  means  to  withdiMW 
anger,  i.  e.  to  appease  it,  which  may  seem  to  be  at  variance  w^th  the  con- 
text here,  but  is  really,  as  Maurer  has  observed,  the  most  appropriate  and 
elegant  expression  of  the  writer's  meaning,  which  is  that  of  wrath  appeased 
by  being  gratified.  (Compare  chap.  i.  24,  vol.  i.  p.  91.) — Lou-th's 
emendation  of  the  text  by  reading  3"':f*ri  (from  3t;*3,  to  breathe  out)  is  gratui- 
tous and  not  supported  by  the  usage  of  that  verb  itself. — Luther  and  Hende- 
werk make  iSX  non  a  kind  of  intensive  compound  {Zornesgluth),  as  in  chap, 
xlii.  25 ;  but  it  is  better  with  Maurer  to  regard  non?  as  qualifying  S^tT'n,  and 
explaining  hov>'  his  anger  was  to  be  appeased,  viz.  in  fury,  i.  e.  in  the  free 
indulgence  of  it. — God's  rebuke  is  often  coupled  with  his  wrath  as  its  eflect 
or  practical  manifestation.  (See  above,  chaps,  xvii.  13,  li.  20,  liv.  9.) 
Most  wTiters  seem  to  make  rebuke  dependent  on  the  pi'eceding  verb  ;  but 
Hendewerk  apparently  regards  it  as  an  independent  clause,  exactly  similar 
in  form  to  the  second  member  of  the  sentence,  and  like  the  whirlwind  his 
chariots,  and  his  rebuke  in  flarnes  of  fire.  The  leading  noun  may  then,  in- 
stead of  being  governed  by  3^v'n,  agree  with  is  or  shall  be  understood.    The 


470  ISAIAH  LXVl.  Veu.  10,  17. 

whole  verse  represents  Jehovah,  considered  in  relation  to  his  enemies,  as  a 
consuming  fire.     (Deut.  iv.  24,  Heb.  xii.  29.     Compare  2  Thcss.  i.  8.) 

16.   For  by  fire  is  Jehovuh  striving  and  lyhis  sword  with  all  Jicsh,  and 
multipJied  {oT  viany)  are  the  slain  of  Jehovah.     Fire  and  sword  are  men- 
tioned as  customar}'  means  of  destruction,  cspecia'Iy  in  war.     The  reflexive 
form  t^SV"]  has  here  its  usual  sense  of  reciprocal  judgment,  litigation,  or 
contention  in  general.     (See  above,  chap,  xliii.  20.)     Gesenius  makes  it 
mean  directly  to  punish,  which  it  never  means  except  by  implication  :  and 
Hitzig,  on  the  same  ground,  explains  n^  as  the  sign  of  the  accusative  ;  but 
that  it  is  really  a  preposition  is  clear  from  Ezek.  xvii.  20,  and  Joel  iv.  2, — 
The  repetition  of  tvilh  by  Noyes  and  Henderson,  "  with  fire,  with  his  sword, 
with  all  flesh,"  is  a  cacophonous  tautology  not  found  in  the  original,  where 
two  distinct  prepositions  are  employed,  which  Lowth  has  wtU  translated  by 
and  with. — According  to  Knobel,  all  flesh  means  all  nations,  and  especially 
the  Babylonians  who  had  not  been  sufficiently  punished  by  Cyrus.     Hen- 
derson applies  the  verses  to  the  battle  of  Armageddon,  described  in  Rev. 
xvi.  11-21,  xix.  11-21,  and  Vitringa  admits  a  reference  to  the  same  event, 
But  this  interpretation  rests  upon  the  false  assumption,  often  noticed  here- 
tofore, that  the  Apocalyptic  prophecies  are  exegetical  of  those  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, from  which  tberr  images  and  terms  are  borrowed. — A  much  surer 
clue  to  the  primary  application  of  the  one  before  us  is  aflbrded  by  our 
Saviour's  words  in  Matt.  xxiv.  22,  where  in  speaking  of  the  speedy  destruc- 
tion of  Jenxsiilem  he  says,  that  excepting  the  elect  no  flesh  sliould  be  saved, 
i.e.  no  portion  of  the  Jewish  race  but  those  who  were  ordained  to  everlast- 
ing life  through  faith  in  him.     This  application  of  Isaiah's  pri>phecy  agrees 
exactly  with  the  view  already  taken  of  the  whole  preceding  context  as  re- 
lating to  that  great  decisive  crisis  in  the  history  of  the  church  and  of  the 
world,  the  dissolution  of  the  old  economy  and  the  inauguration  of  the  new. 
According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  what  is  here  said  of  fire,  sword,  and 
slaughter,  was  fulfilled  not  only  as  a  figurative  prophecy  of  general  destruc- 
tion, but  in  its  strictest  sense  in  tho  terrific  carnage  which  attended  tho 
extinct  on  of  the  Jewish  State,  and  of  which,  more  emphatically  than  of  any 
other  event  outwardly  resembling  it,  it  might  be  said  that  many  were  the 
slain  nf  Jehovah. 

17.  The  (men)  hallowing  themselves  and  the  (men)  cleansing  iJiemselves 
to  (or  towards)  the  gardens  after  one  in  the  midst,  eaters  of  swine's  flesh 
and  vermin  and  mouse,  together  shall  cease  (or  come  to  an  end),  saith  Jeho- 
vah. This  verse  is  closely  connected  with  the  one  before  it,  and  t-xpluins 
who  are  meant  by  the  slain  of  Jehovah.  It  is  almost  universally  iigned 
that  these  are  here  described  as  gross  idolaters  ;  but  Henderson,  with  snme 
of  the  old  Jewish  writers,  is  inclined  to  understand  it  of  the  Mohamnudiuis, 
as  wo  shall  see.  liut  even  among  those  who  understand  it  of  idolat^-rs, 
there  is  no  small  ditfurenco  of  opinion  in  relation  to  particular  expressions. 
The  class  of  persons  meant  is  obviously  the  same  as  that  described  in 
chap.  Ixv.  8,  5,  the  gardens  and  the  swine's  flesh  being  connnon  to  both. 
The  reflexive  jjarticiples  in  the  first  clause  are  technical  terms  for  cere- 
monial purification  under  the  law  of  Moses,  but  hero  transferred  to  heathen 
riti's.  The  older  writers  for  the  most  part  follow  the  Vulgate  in  explaining 
ni3|n"?^  as  synonymf)Us  with  ni3J3  in  chap.  Ixv.  8.  Even  Gesenius  admits 
this  sense,  although  he  gives  the  preference  to  that  of  for.  But  Mann  r 
speaks  of  it  as  one  no  longer  needing  refutation,  and  returns  to  the  strict 
translation  of  the  Septuagint  {il;  roii;  x^jrou;),  inijtlying  that  they  purified 
themselves  not  in  but  on  their  way  to  the  gardens,  which  is  essentially  tho 


Ver.  17.]  ISAIAH  LXVI.  471 

sense  conveyed  by  the  translation  for,  i.e.  in  preparation  for  the  gardens 
where  the  idolatrous  services  were  to  be  performed.  The  next  words 
("^IJ??  ins  "inX)  are  those  which  constitute  the  principal  difficulty  of  the 
sentence.  This  some  have  undertaken  to  remove  by  emendations  of  the 
text.  Even  the  Masora  reads  nns,  which  is  only  changing  the  gender  of 
the  numeral.  Ewald  assimilates  the  first  two  words  so  as  to  read  ">nx  "inx, 
which  he  renders  hinten  hinlcn,  i.  e.  far  back.  Lowth  on  the  other  hand 
reads  "IHS  ins  one  one,  i.  e.  one  by  one,  or  one  after  the  other.  The  same 
reading  seems  to  bo  applied  in  Luther's  version,  one  here  and  another  there. 
The  Peshito  has  one  after  another,  and  the  same  sense  is  expressed  by  the 
Targum,  crowd  after  crowd,  and  l)y  Symmachus  and  Theodotion  ott/Vw 
dXX^jXw!/.  Schelliug  accordingly  inserts  a  word,  reading  nnx  "inx  nnx. 
Whether  a  various  reading  is  implied  in  the  Septuagint  version  {sv  ruTg 
<ir^o6{jsoi:),  or  merely,  a  pecuUar  explanation  of  "ins,  is  a  matter  of  dispute. 
Some,  without  a  change  of  text,  bring  out  the  same  sense  by  supposing  an 
ellipsis.  Most  interpreters  take  inx  (or  according  to  the  Masoretic  Keri 
nnX)  as  the  numeral  one,  agreeing  either  with  grove  (Aben  Ezra),  or  with 
pool  (Kimchi),  or  with  tree  (Saadias),  or  with  priest  or  priestess  (Gesenius) ; 
which  last  may  be  given  as  the  current  explanation,  in  which  an  allusion  is 
supposed  to  an  idolatrous  procession  led  by  a  hierophant.  Maurer  applies 
*ins  to  the  idol,  which  he  supposes  to  be  so  called  in  contempt,  one,  being 
then  equivalent  to  the  Latin  quidam,  necscio  quern.  Vitringa  follows  Scaliger, 
Bochart,  and  other  learned  men  of  early  date,  in  treating  "inx  as  the  proper 
name  of  a  Sj-rian  idul,  called  by  Sanchoniathon  "A(5w5o?  and  by  Pliny  and 
Macrobius  Adad,  the  last  writer  adding  expressly  that  the  name  means  one. 
For  the  ditierence  of  form  various  explanations  have  ])een  sucEtested,  and 
among  the  rest  a  corruption  in  the  classical  orthogi-aphy,  which  is  rendered 
exceedingly  improbable,  however,  by  the  substantial  agreement  of  the  Greek 
and  Latin  vniters  above  cited.  Rosenmiiller  acquiesces  in  Vitringa's  sug- 
gestion that  the  ditierence  of  form  may  be  explained  by  the  exclusion  of 
the  aspirate  from  the  middle  of  a  Greek  word,  the  hiatus  being  remedied 
by  the  insertion  of  a  dental ;  but  Gesenius  replies  that  inx  would  more 
naturally  have  been  written  " Ayj^ho;  and  Achadus  in  Greek  and  Latin  The 
Masoretic  reading  nnx  is  identified  by  Clericus  with  Hecate,  in  whose  Egyp- 
tian worship  swine's  flesh  was  particularly  used.  Henderson  calls  attention 
to  a  very  striking  coincidence  between  the  use  of  this  word  here  and  the  con- 
stant application  of  the  cognate  one  in  Arabic  (jc^\)  by  the  Mohammedans 

to  God  as  being  One,  in  express  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
This  is  especially  the  case  in  the  112th  Surah  of  the  Koran,  to  which  they 
attach  peculiar  doctrinal  importance.  The  common  editions  of  the  Vulgate 
render  '^^^?  here  byji'rtnMa(like  the  Peshito) ;  but  some  of  more  authority  have 
imain,  in  accordance  with  the  marginal  Keri.  Besides  the  difiiculty  which 
attends  the  absolute  use  of  the  numeral  without  a  noun,  there  is  another 
of  the  same  kind  arismg  from  the  like  use  of  "^W,  midst,  without  any  thing 
to  hmit  or  detennine  it.  Gesenius  attaches  to  it  here  as  he  does  in  2  Sam. 
iv.  6,  the  sense  of  the  interior  or  court  of  an  oriental  house,  and  applies  it 
to  the  edifice  in  which  the  lustrations  were  performed  before  entering  the 
gardens;  which  may  also  be  the  meaning  of  the  Septuagint  version,  ii;  rovg 
x^crovi,  h  ToTz  crgorfvjo/;.  Maurer  and  others  follow  Scaliger,  who  makes  it 
mean  the  midst  of  the  grove  or  garden,  where  the  idol  was  commonly 
erected.  But  Ivnobel,  by  ingeniously  combining  Gen.  xlii.  5,  Ps.  xlii.  5, 
Ixviii.  26,  makes  it  more  improbable  that  in  the  midst  means  in  the  crowd 


472  ISAIAH  LX]  I.  ,  Vk;;.  17. 

or  procession  of  worshippers.  All  these  constructions  adhere  to  the  ^laso- 
retic  points  and  interpuuctiou.  But  Lowth  and  Henderson  follow  Theodo- 
tion  and  SMumachus  in  reading  "^iri?  and  connecting  it  directly  with  what 
follows,  in  tlie  midst  of  th)se  eatinr/  swiiie's  Jiesh,  &.C.,  implying,  as  Lo\>i.h 
thinks,  a  participation  in  these  impure  rites,  while  Henderson  supposes  tho 
Mohammedans  to  be  distinguished,  as  to  this  point,  from  tho  Pagans  who 
surround  them.  Boettcher  departs  still  further  from  the  usual  iuterpunc- 
tion,  and  includes  1iri3  not  in  the  description  of  tho  sin,  hut  in  the  threaten- 
ing of  punishment — in  the  midst  of  the  eaters  of  swine's  flesh,  &.C.,  together 
shall  they  perish.  One  reason  urged  by  Henderson  in  favour  of  his  own 
construction  is  without  weight,  namely,  that  Dv3N  being  without  the  article 
cannot  be  in  apposition  with  the  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence, 
but  must  designate  a  totally  ditlerent  class  of  persons.  Ho  did  not  observe 
that  v3N  is  rendered  definite  by  the  addition  of  a  qualifying  noun,  which 
being  equivalent  to  tho  article  excludes  it.  As  to  the  eating  of  swine's 
flesh,  see  above  on  chap.  Ixv.  4. — I'i^lJ'  may  either  have  its  generic  sense 
of  abomination  or  abominable  food,  or  the  more  specific  sense  of  flesh 
oflered  to  idols  (Hitzig),  or  of  the  smaller  unclean  animals,  whether  quad- 
rupeds, insects,  or  reptiles,  to  which  it  is  specially  applied  in  the  law  (Lev. 
xi.  41-48),  and  in  reference  to  which  it  corresponds  very  nearly,  in  efl'ect, 
to  the  English  word  vermin.  Spencer  thinks  that  it  means  a  kid  boiled  in 
its  mother's  milk.  (Exod.  xxiii.  19,  xxxiv.  26.)  Against  tho  wide  sense 
of  abomination  and  in  favour  of  some  more  specific  meaning  is  the  colloca- 
tion of  the  word  between  swine's  flesh  and  the  mouse,  or  as  the  modern 
writers  understand  the  word,  the  jerboa  or  Arabian  field-mouse  which  is 
eaten  by  the  Arabs.  The  actual  use  of  any  kind  of  mouse  in  the  ancient 
heathen  rites  has  never  been  established,  the  modem  allegations  of  the  fact 
being  founded  on  the  place  before  us.  As  to  the  application  of  the  passage, 
those  who  make  the  Babylonian  exile  tho  gi'eat  subject  of  tho  prophecy,  see 
nothing  hero  but  a  description  of  tho  practices  of  those  Jews  who  aposta- 
tised to  heathenism,  and  who  were  to  be  cut  oft'  by  the  same  judgments 
which  secured  the  restoration  of  their  brethren.  J.  D.  Michaelis  confesses 
his  uncertainty  in  what  sense  this  description  will  be  verified  hereafter  ; 
and  Henderson,  who  holds  the  same  hypothesis,  pleads  guilty  to  a  part  of 
the  same  ignorance,  but  bravely  and  ingeniously  endeavours,  by  the  com- 
bination of  the  particular  contrivances  already  mentioned,  to  impart  some 
plausibility  to  his  assumption  that  the  prophecy  has  reference  to  the  future 
restoration  of  the  Jews.  This  could  not  have  been  done  with  greater  skill 
or  more  success  than  he  has  shewn  in  his  attempt  to  make  it  probable  that 
what  is  here  predicted  is  the  future  destruction  of  the  Moslems  as  tho 
enemies  of  Christ's  divinity  and  noted  for  their  trust  in  outward  rites, 
especially  alilutions — their  destruction  in  the  midst  of  the  idolaters  whom 
now  they  hate  most  bitterly  and  most  profoundly  scorn.  This  explanation 
seems  to  have  beLii  framed  by  its  ingenious  author  without  any  reference 
to  the  dictum  of  the  Rabbins,  that  the  first  clause  of  tho  verso,  is  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  Moslems  and  their  purifications,  but  the  next  of  the  Christians 
as  eaters  of  swine-flesh,  and  regardless  of  all  dillerence  in  meats  and  drinks. 
Tho  most  ofl'ensive  part  of  this  interpretation,  although  extant  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Kirachi  himself,  has  been  expunged  from  most  editions  for  pruden- 
tial motives.  (See  Vitringa  on  tlio  passage.)  It  is  not  to  be  expectetl 
that  the  advocates  of  any  excgctical  liypothesis  will  here  abandon  it  if  able 
by  any  means  to  reconcile  it  with  the  Prophet's  language,  and  accordingly 
I  SCO  no  cause  to  change  my  prenous  conclusion  that  this  prophecy  relates 


Yer.  18.]  ISAIAH  LXVl.  -iTS 

to  the  excision  of  the  Jews  and  the  vocation  of  the  Gentiles,  or  in  other 
words  the  change  of  dispensation.  The  apparent  difficulty  which  arises 
from  the  description  of  such  gross  idolatry  as  all  admit  to  have  had  no 
existence  among  the  Jews  after  their  return  from  exile,  is  removed  by  the 
consideration  that  the  Jews  were  cast  oti'  not  for  the  sins  of  a  single  gene- 
ration, but  of  the  race  throughout  its  ancient  history,  and  that  idolatry  was 
not  only  one  of  these,  but  that  which  most  abounded  in  the  days  of  the  Pro- 
phet ;  so  that  when  he  looks  forward  to  the  great  c;itastrophe  and  paints 
its  causes,  he  natural^  dips  his  pencil  in  the  colours  which  were  nearest 
and  most  vivid  to  his  own  perceptions,  without  meaning  to  exclude  from 
his  description  other  sins  as  great  or  greater  in  themselves,  which  after- 
wards supplanted  these  revolting  practices  as  the  besetting  national  trans- 
gressions of  apostate  Israel.  A  writer  in  the  early  days  of  Wilberforce  and 
Clarkson,  in  denouncing  God's  wrath  upon  England,  would  most  naturally 
place  the  oppression  of  the  negro  in  the  foreground  of  his  picture,  even  if 
he  had  been  gifted  to  foresee  that  this  great  evil  in  the  course  of  time  would 
be  completely  banished  from  the  sight  of  men  by  new  forms  of  iniquity 
successivel}'  usurping  its  conspicuous  position,  such  as  excessive  luxury, 
dishonest  speculation,  and  ambitious  encroachment  on  the  rightful  posses- 
sions of  inferior  powers  in  the  East.  If  it  were  really  God's  purpose  to 
destroy  that  mighty  kingdom  for  its  national  otlonces,  he  would  not  lose 
sight  of  ancient  half-forgotten  crimes,  because  they  have  long  since  given 
place  to  others  more  or  less  atrocious.  So  in  reference  to  Israel,  although 
the  generation  upon  whom  the  final  blow  fell  were  hypocrites,  not  idolaters, 
the  misdeeds  of  their  fathers  entered  into  the  account,  and  the}-  were  cast 
oti'  not  merely  as  the  murderers  of  the  Lord  of  life,  but  as  apostates  who 
insulted  Jehovah  to  his  face  by  bowing  down  to  stocks  and  stones  in  gi'oves 
and  gardens,  and  by  eating  swine's  flesh,  the  abomination,  and  the  mouse. 
And  as  all  this  was  included  in  the  grounds  of  their  righteous  condemna- 
tion, it  might  well  be  rendered  prominent  in  some  of  the  predictions  of  that 
great  catastrophe. — Another  possible  interpretation  of  the  passage,  in  direct 
application  to  the  unbelieving  Jews  who  were  contemporary  with  our  Saviour, 
is  obtained  by  supposing  an  allusion  to  ver.  3,  where  those  who  still  clung 
to  the  abrogated  ritual  are  put  upon  a  level  with  the  gi-ossest  idolaters,  and 
may  here  be  absolutely  so  described,  just  as  the  rulers  and  people  of  Jeru- 
salem in  chap.  i.  9,  are  addressed  directly  as  rulers  of  Sodom  and  people 
of  Gomorrah,  on  account  of  the  comparison  immediately  preceding.  This 
view  of  the  passage  is  undoubtedly  favoured  by  the  mention  of  swine's  flesh 
in  both  places,  which  would  naturally  make  the  one  suggestive  of  the  other. 
Neither  of  these  exegetical  hypotheses  requires  the  assumption  of  imaginary 
facts,  such  as  the  practice  of  idolatry  by  the  Jews  in  exile,  or  their  return 
to  it  hereafter. 

18.  And  I — their  works  and  their  thoughts — it  is  come — to  gather  all  the 
7iations  and  the  tunt/ues — and  they  .shall  come  and  see  my  glory.  This  is  an 
exact  transcript  of  the  Hebrew  sentence,  the  grammatical  construction  of 
which  has  much  perplexed  interpreters.  Luther  cuts  the  knot  by  arbitrary 
ti'ausposition,  1  will  come  and  gath-'r  all  their  2vorks  and  thoughts  tvith  all 
nations,  &c.  ;  J.  D.  Michaelis,  by  a  no  less  arbitrary  change  of  pointing, 
so  as  to  read,  they  are  my  uork,  even  mine,  and  my  thought,  i.  e.  care. 
Tremellius  and  Cocceius  among  the  older  writers,  Hitzig  and  Heudewerk 
among  the  moderns,  follow  Jurchi  in  taking  the  pronoun  as  a  nominative 
absolute  and  construing  nsil  with  the  nouns  preceding:  As  for  me — their 
works  and  thoughts  are  come  to  gather,  &c.     Hitzig  explains  are  come  as 


Hi  ISM  All  LXVI.  [Ter.  19. 

meftninjT  they  have  this  eflect ;  while  Ilenclcwtrk  gives  to  the  nouns  thorn- 
selves  the  sense  of  recompence,  as  in  chap.  xl.  10,  and  llev.  xiv.  13.    llin- 
dcrson  has  substantially  the  same  construction,  but  supplies  before  mc  after 
come,  and   takes  *f*3i?<  as   a  simple  iuiuro,  I  uill  assetnble ;  both  which  as- 
sumptions  are  extremely  forced.      Vitringa,   Gesenius,  and   most  other 
writers,  suppose  an  aposiopesis  or  a  double  ellipsis,  supplying  a  verb  after 
*?Jt<  arid  a  noun  before  '"1^53.     The  verb  most  commonly  supplied  is  know, 
as  in  the  EngHsh  Version  (I  know  their  works  and  their  thoughts),  and 
substantially  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  (revealed  before  me  are  their  works 
and  thoughts).     The  noun  supplied  is  lime,  according  to  the  dictum  of 
Aben  Ezra.     But  the   verb   supphed   l>y  Maurer  is  I  ivill  punish,  and  he 
makes  nN3  impersonal,  it  comes  or  it  is  come,  as  we  say,  Is  it  come  to  this  ? 
•without  referring  to  a  definite  subject.     In  this  obscurity  and  doubt  as  to 
the   syntax,   there   is   something  attractive   in   the  theory  of  Ewald  aud 
Knobel  who  supply  nothing,  but  regard  the   first  clause   as  a   series   of 
broken  and  irregular  ejaculations,  in  which  the  expression  of  the  thought 
is  interrupted  by  the  writer's  feelings. — Common  to  all  these  explanations 
is  the  general  assumption  that  the  words  and  thoughts  of  the  persons  in 
question  are  in  some  way  represented  as  the  cauf-e  or  the  occasion  of  the 
gathering  mentioned  in  the  other  clause.     The  use  of  the  word  tongue.^  as 
an  equivalent  to  iiatinns,  has  reference  to  national  distinctions  springing 
from  diversity  of  language,  and  is  founded  on  Gen.  x.  5,  20,  31,  by  the 
influence  of  which  passage  and  the  one  before  us  it  became  a  phrase  of 
frequent  use  in  Daniel,  whose  predictions  turn  so  much  upon  the  calling 
of  the  Gentiles.     (Dan.  iii.  4,  7,  81,  v.  19).     The  representation  of  this 
form  of  speech  as  an  Aramaic  idiom  by  some  modern  critics  is  character- 
istic of  their  candour. — To  see  the  yhny  of  Jehovah  is  a  phrase  repeatedly 
used  elsewhere  to  denote  the  special  manifestation  of  his  presence  and 
his  power  (chaps,  xl.   4,  lix.  19,  Ix.  2).  and  is  applied  by  Ezekiel  to  the 
display  of  his  punitive  justice  in  the  sight  of  all  mankind  (E/.ek.  xxxix.  8). 
Cocceius  refers  this  passage  to  the  Reformation  and  the  Council  of  Trent. 
Tlie  Jews  understand  it  of  the  strokes  to  be  inflicted  hereafter  on  their 
enemies.     Hut  as  we  have  seen  that  the  crimes  described  in  the  foregoing 
verses  are  not  those  of  the  heathen,  but  of  the  apostate  Jews,  whose  deeds 
and  thoughts  must  therefore  be  intended  in  the  first  clause,  the  explanation 
most  in  harmony  with  this  immediate  context,  as  well  as  with  the  whole 
drift  of  the  prophecy  thus  far,   is  that  which  makes  the  verse  before  us 
a  distinct  prediction  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  both  to  witness  the 
infliction   of  God's   vengeance   on   tlie  Jews,  and   to   supply  their  places 
in  his  church  or  chosen  people.     It  is  perhaps  to  the  language  of  this 
prophecv  that  Christ  himself  alludes  in  .Mat.  xxiv.  31.      (Comiiarc  also 
John  v."2r)). 

19.  And  I  will  place  j'tj  them  (or  iimon>j  them)  a  sijn,  and  I  icill  svml  of 
them  survivors  (or  rscaped  ones)  to  the  nations,  Tarshish,  Put,  and  Lxid, 
drawers  of  the  how,  Ttdtal  and  Jnvnu,  the  distant  isfcs,  which  have  not  heard 
my  fame  and  have  not  seen  my  glory,  and  they  shdl  declare  my  yhry  among 
the  nations.  liy  a  sign  Qrotius  niidt  rstan<ls  a  signal,  making  rilN  cijuiva- 
lont  to  Dp  in  chaps,  v.  2(1,  xi.  12,  xviii.  8,  Ixii.  10.  Gesenius  objects  to  the 
sense  thus  put  upon  r\)H  ns  not  sustained  by  usage ;  but  I\Iam-er  defends  it 
as  easily  dedncible  from  that  of  a  military  standard,  which  it  has  in  Num. 
ii.  2.  Most  modern  writers  agree,  however,  with  Gesenius  in  determining 
the  sense  of  the  whole  phrase  from  that  which  it  evidently  has  in  Exod. 
X.  1,  2,  where  God  is  twice  said  to  have  placed  his  signs  among  the  Eg}"p- 


Ver.  19. J  ISAIAH  LXVl.  175 

tians,  with  evident  allusion  to  the  plagues  as  miraculoas  evidences  of  his 
power.  Explained  bj  this  analogy,  the  clause  before  us  would  appear  to 
mean,  I  will  work  a  miracle  among  them  or  before  them. — The  Q'P'!?9, 
as  in  chap.  iv.  3,  are  the  survivors  of  the  judgments  previously  men- 
tioned. These  are  sent  to  the  nations,  of  whom  some  are  then  parti- 
cularly mentioned.  For  the  sense  of  Tarshish,  see  above,  on  chap. 
Ix.  9.  Its  use  here  may  be  regarded  as  decisive  of  the  question  whether  it 
denotes  the  sea.  Even  the  Septuagint,  the  oldest  authority  for  that  in- 
terpretation, here  retains  the  Hebrew  word  ;  and  Luther,  though  he  still 
translates  it  sea,  is  compelled  to  avoid  a  palpable  absurdity  by  altering  the 
63'ntax  so  as  to  read  to  the  nations  on  the  sea,  whereas  Tarshish  is  added  to 
the  general  term  nations  precisely  as  the  other  names  are  added  afterwards. 
The  incongruity  of  this  translation  of  the  word  is  exhibited  without  disguise 
in  the  Vulgate,  ail  rjentes,  in  mare,  in  A/ricaiii,  Sec,  so  that  the  sea  stands 
first  in  a  catalogue  of  nations. — Pul  is  identified  by  Bochart  with  the 
island  PhiJae  in  the  Nile  on  the  frontier  of  Ethiopia  and  Egypt ;  which 
Gesenius  rejects  as  improbable,  without  proposing  any  better  explanation. 
Hitzig  and  Kuobel  regard  it  as  an  orthographical  variation  or  an  error  of 
the  text  for  Put  or  Phut,  which  is  elsewhere  joined  with  Lud  (.Jcr.  xlvi.  9, 
Ezck.  xxvii.  10)  and  repeatedly  written  in  the  Septuagint  <I)o63  (Gen.  x.  6, 
1  Chron.  1.  8),  the  same  form  which  that  version  here  employs.  All  agree 
that  the  name  belongs  to  Africa,  like  that  which  follows,  and  that  Lnd  is  the 
Ludim  of  Gen.  x.  3,  and  Jer.  xlvi.  9,  elsewhere  represented  as  archers 
(Ezek.  xxvii.  10,  xxx.  5).  There  is  no  ground,  therefore,  for  suspecting,  with 
Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  ^t^'p  ""yc'l^  is  an  error  of  the  text  for  11^0, 
Meshech,  although  that  name  frequently  occurs  in  connection  with  the  fol- 
lowing name  Tubal  (Gen.  x.  2,  Ezek.  xxvii.  13,  &c.)  as  denoting  the  Moayjit 
xai  TiiSasriVol  of  Herodotus.  Javan  is  the  Hebrew  name  for  Greece  (Gen. 
X.  2,  Dan.  viii.  21,  Zech.  ix.  13),  perhaps  identical  with  Ion  or  Ionia. 
Gesenius  quotes  a  Scholiast  on  Aristophanes  as  laying,  r:dvrai  To-jz''E>.'>.7ivag 
'Idovccc  01  jSu^iSapoi  h.aXoiJv.  The  same  name  essentially  exists  in  Sanscrit. 
Even  Henderson,  instead  of  finding  here,  as  might  perhaps  have  been  ex- 
pected, a  specilic  promise  of  the  future  conversion  (or  reconversion)  of  the 
nations  specified,  allirms  that  they  are  "  obviously  given  as  a  sample." 
This  is  rendered  still  more  certain  by  the  addition  of  the  general  expres- 
sion, the  remote  coasts  or  islands  ;  for  the  sense  of  which  see  above,  on 
chap.  xH.  1.  It  is  not  without  plausibility  suggested  by  Viti-inga,  that 
some  of  the  obscure  names  here  used  were  selected  for  the  express  purpose 
of  conveying  the  idea  of  remote  and  unknown  regions.  The  restriction  of 
the  promise  to  the  verj'  places  mentioned  would  be  like  the  proceeding  of 
a  critic  who  should  argue  hereafter  from  the  mention  of  Greenland,  India, 
Africa,  and  Ceylon,  in  Hebcr's  Missionary  Hymn,  that  the  zeal  of  English 
Protestants  extended  only  to  those  portions  of  the  heathen  world.  As  this 
interpretation  of  the  hymn  would  be  forbidden,  not  only  by  the  general 
analogy  of  figurative  language  and  of  lyric  composition,  but  by  the  express 
use  of  such  universal  phrases  as  "from  pole  to  pole"  in  the  very  same 
connection,  so  in  this  case  it  is  plain  that  the  essential  meaning  of  the 
whole  enumeration  is  that  expressed  in  the  following  clause  :  Who  have  not 
hchrd  my  fame  and  have  not  seen  my  fjlory?  Lowth's  poor  attempt  at 
emendation  of  the  text  by  ri^ading  name  for  fame  (  *PP'  for  *VPP')  is  not 
only  built  upon  a  false  assumption  of  unvaried  uniformity  in  the  expression 
of  the  same  idea,  but  unsupported  even  by  the  Septuagint  version  (ovo/xa), 
which  Kocher  has  shewn  to  be  a  frequent  equivalent  in  that  translation  for 


•17G  ISAIAII  LXVI.  , Yer.  20. 

the  Hebrew  yOy'. — As  to  the  meaning  of  the  whole  verse,  or  the  nature  of 
the  event  which  it  predicts,  interpreters  differ  in  exftct  accordance  with 
their  several  hypotheses.  Gcscnius  understands  hv  the  Hvjn  hen>  promised, 
the  extraordinary  confluence  of  Jews  from  all  parts  of  the  world.  Hitzig 
agrees  with  the  llahhins  in  supposing  it  to  designate  a  miraculous  slaughter 
of  the  enemies  of  Zion,  which  they,  however,  represent  as  future,  while  he 
supposes  that  the  writer  expected  it  to  take  place  at  the  time  of  the  return 
from  Bab3-lon.  According  to  Henderson,  *'  the  missionaries  to  be  sent  to 
the  different  parts  of  the  world  are  Gentiles,  who  shall  have  been  present 
at,  but  have  not  perished  in,  the  great  overthrow  in  Palestine."  All  these 
explanations  proceed  upon  the  supposition  that  the  pronoun  them,  which 
is  twice  used  in  the  first  clause,  must  refer  to  the  tongues  and  nations  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  verse,  and  Henderson  speaks  of  its  reference  to  the 
Jews  themselves  as  "  violent."  But  this  is  only  true  on  the  assumption 
that  the  nineteenth  verse  describes  something  subsequent  in  time  to  the 
eighteenth,  which  is  not  only  needless  but  at  variance  with  the  context. 
For  with  what  consistency  could  the  Prophet  represent  all  nations  as 
assembled  at  Jerusalem  and  then  the  survivors  or  escaped  among  them 
being  sent  to  all  the  nations?  To  say  that  the  first  is  a  figure  of  speech, 
is  only  saying  what  may  just  as  well  be  said  of  the  other.  If  the  Proi)het 
really  presents  to  us  in  ver.  18  the  image  of  a  general  assemblage  of  the 
nations,  we  have  no  right  to  suppose  that  in  the  next  verse  he  has  quite 
forgotten  it.  The  only  way  in  which  these  seeming  contradictions  can  bo 
reconciled  is  by  assuming  what  is  in  itself  most  natural  and  perfectly  agree- 
able to  usage,  namely,  that  ver.  19  does  not  describe  the  progress  of  events 
beyond  the  time  referred  to  in  ver.  18,  but  explains  in  what  way  the  assem- 
blage there  described  is  to  be  brought  about.  "  I  will  gather  all  nations."  By 
what  means  ?  I  will  send  those  who  escape  my  judgments  to  invito  them. 
Both  verses  being  then  collateral  and  equally  dependent  on  ver.  17,  the 
pronoun  them  refers  to  the  persons  there  described,  viz.  the  apostate  Jews 
whose  excision  is  the  subject  of  this  ])rophecy.  The  whole  may  then  be 
paraphrased  as  follows  :  Such  being  their  character,  I  will  cast  them  off 
and  gather  the  nations  to  take  their  place  ;  for  which  end  I  will  send  forth 
the  survivors  of  the  nation,  the  elect  for  whose  sake  these  days  shall  bo 
shortened  when  all  besides  them  perish,  to  declare  my  glory  in  the  regions 
where  my  name  has  never  yet  been  heard.  Thus  understood,  the  passage 
is  exactly  descriptive  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  at  the  beginning  of  the 
new  dispensation.  All  the  first  preachers  were  escaped  Jews,  plucked  as 
brands  from  the  burning,  saved  from  that  perverse  generation  (Acts  ii.  40.) 
The  siijn  will  then  denote  the  whole  miraculous  display  of  divine  power,  in 
bringing  the  old  dispensation  to  a  close  and  introducing  the  new,  including 
the  destruction  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  othiT 
all  those  "signs  and  wonders,  and  divers  miracles  and  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost "  (Heb.  ii.  -l),  which  Paul  calls  the  "signs  of  an  apostle"  (2  Cor.  xii.  12), 
and  which  Christ  himself  had  promised  should  follow  them  that  believed 
(Mark  xvi.  17).  All  these  were  signs  placed  among  them,  t.  e.  among  the 
Jews,  to  the  greater  condemnation  of  the  unbelievers,  and  to  the  salvation 
of  such  as  should  be  saved. — Thnt  there  will  not  be  hereafter  nn  analogous 
display  of  divine  power  in  the  further  execution  of  Lliis  promise,  cannot  be 
proved,  and  need  not  be  affirmed  ;  but  if  there  never  should  be,  it  will 
still  have  had  a  glorious  fulfilment  iu  a  series  of  events,  compared  with  whiih, 
the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  people  to  the  land  of  Canaan  is  of  little  moment. 
2U.   .1/1(1  they  shall  briny  all  your  brethren  from  all  nations,  an  oblation  to 


Ver.  20. j  ISAIAH  LXVI.  477 

Jehovah,  icith  horses,  and  with  chariot,  and  with  lifters,  and  with  nudes,  and 
with  dromedaries,  on  my  holy  mou?itain  Jerusalem,  saith  Jehovah,  as  th^ 
children  of  Israel  bring  the  oblation  in  a  clean  vessel  to  the  house  of  Jehovah. 
The  verb  at  the  beginning  may  be  constnied  either  with  the  messengers  of 
ver.  19,  or  indefinitely  as  denoting  "  men  shall  bring  your  brethren,"  equi- 
valent in  Hebrew  usage  to  "your  brethren  shall  be  brought."  Although 
this  last  construction  is  in  perfect  agi-eement  with  analogy,  the  other  is  not 
only  unobjectionable  but  entitled  to  the  preference  as  mi;ch  more  graphic 
ami  expressive.  The  survivors  sent  forth  to  the  nations  are  then  described 
as  bringing  back  the  converts  to  the  true  religion  as  an  offering  to 
Jehovah.  Their  return  for  this  purpose  is  described  as  easy,  swift,  and 
even  splendid,  all  the  choicest  methoJs  of  conveyance  used  in  ancient 
times  being  here  combined  to  express  that  idea.  As  to  the  sense  of 
the  particular  expressions  there  is  no  longer  any  dispute  or  doubt,  and 
a  general  reference  may  be  made  to  the  lexicons.  Lowth  here  exhibits 
an  extraordinary  lapse  of  taste  and  judgment  in  transforming  litters  into 
coujies,  as  if  this  uncouth  Persian  word  which  he  had  found  in  Thcve- 
not,  could  make  the  sentence  either  more  perspicuous  or  better  English. 
With  equal  right  he  might  have  introduced  the  native  or  vernacular  name 
of  the  peculiar  oriental  mule,  &c.  It  does  not  even  matter  as  to  the  gene- 
ral meaning  of  the  verse,  whether  a  ^V  was  a  coach,  a  litter,  or  a  waggon, 
since  either  would  suggest  the  idea  of  comparatively  rapid  and  convenient 
locomotion. — The  "^0?^  ^'''*s  the  stated  vegetable  offering  of  the  IMosaic 
ritual.  It  was  commonly  composed  of  flour  with  oil  and  incense  ;  but  the 
name,  in  its  widest  sense,  may  be  considered  as  including  fruits  and  grain 
in  a  crude  as  well  as  a  prepared  state.  This  oblation  seems  to  be  selected 
here  as  free  from  the  concomitant  ideas  of  cruelty  and  grossness  which 
were  inseparable  from  bloody  sacrifices.  The  •"IX''?^  at  the  end  cannot  be 
gi-ammatically  rendered  as  a  past  tense,  which  form  Hitzig  here  adopts, 
perhaps  in  accommodation  to  his  theory  as  to  the  composition  of  the  pas- 
sage during  the  Babylonish  exile.  Even  in  that  case,  however,  the  future 
would  be  perfectly  appropriate,  as  implying  an  expected  restoration  of  the 
ancient  rites,  much  more  if  we  suppose  that  the  verse  was  written  before 
they  had  ever  been  suspended. — The  only  general  exegetical  question  in 
relation  to  this  verse  is  whether  your  brethren  means  the  scattered  Jews  or 
the  converted  Gentiles.  Here  again,  all  depends  upon  a  foregone  conclu- 
sion. Henderson  says,  "  that  your  brethren  means  the  Jews  there  can  be 
no  doubt,"  in  which  he  is  sustained  by  the  Jews  themselves,  and  by  Maurer, 
Hitzig,  Hendew^erk,  and  Knobel ;  while  the  opposite  conclusion  is  con- 
sidered equally  indubitable,  not  onh'  by  Yitringa,  but  by  Gesenius,  Ewald, 
and  Umbreit.  In  answer  to  the  question  how  the  Jews  are  to  be  thus 
hrought  by  the  nations,  when  the  gathering  of  the  nations  is  itself  to  be 
occasioned  by  the  previous  gathering  of  the  Jews,  ho  replies  that  the  verse 
"  regards  such  Jews  as  might  not  yet  have  reached  the  laud  of  their 
fathers,"  as  if  this  contingent  possible  residuum  could  be  described  as  all 
your  brethren  from  all  nntions  !  How  mextricably  this  one  case  is  impli- 
cated in  the  general  question  as  to  the  subject  and  design  of  the  prophecy, 
appears  from  the  fact  that  those  who  apply  this  expression  to  the  Jews  con- 
tent themselves  with  citing  all  the  other  places  in  Isaiah  whore  precisely  the 
same  doubt  exists  as  in  the  case  before  us.  In  ftivour  of  the  other  ex- 
planation, Yitringa  adduces,  and  perhaps  too  strongly  urges,  Paul's  descrip- 
tion of  the  Gentiles  as  an  oblation  which  h?,  as  an  officiating  priest,  offered 
up  to  God  (Rom.  XV.   26).     Although  it  may  be  doubted  whether  Paul 


478  ISAIAH  LX  VI.  [Ver.  21. 

there,  as  Vitringa  says,  formally  explains  or  even  quotes  this  prophecy,  bis 
obvious  allusion  to  its  images  and  terms  shews  at  least  that  be  considered 
them  as  bearing  such  an  application,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  gives 
it  undoubtedly  a  clear  advantage.  Another  suggestion  of  Vitringa,  not 
unworthy  of  attention,  is  that  there  may  here  be  special  reference  to  the 
early  converts  from  the  heathen  world,  ct)nsidereil  as  the  Jirst  fruits  of  the 
spu'itual  harvest;  which  agrees  well  with  the  wide  use  of  the  technical 
term  '"in^D  as  already  stated,  and  with  the  frequent  application  of  the  figure 
of  first  fruits  to  the  same  subject  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

21.  And  also  of  them  uill  I  take  for  the  priests  for  the  Levitt's  saith  Jeho- 
vah. Many  manuscripts  supply  and  before  the  second  for,  and  Lowtb 
considers  it  necessary  to  the  sense,  and  accordingly  inserts  it.  The  pecu- 
liar form  of  the  common  text  may  bo  intended  to  identify  the  two  classes, 
as  in  point  of  fact  the  priests  were  all  without  exception  Levites.  It  seems 
at  least  to  be  implied  that  the  distinction  is  in  this  case  of  no  consequence, 
both  names  being  given  lest  either  should  appear  to  be  excluded.  The 
only  question  here  is  to  what  the  pronoun  thetii  refers.  The  Jews  of  course 
refuse  to  understand  it  of  the  Gentiles  ;  and  even  Joseph  Kimchi,  who 
admits  this  application  as  required  by  the  context,  avoids  all  inconvenient 
consequences  by  explaining /or  the  priests  and  Levites,  to  mean  for  their 
service,  "  as  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  I"  Gesenius,  Rosenraiiller, 
Maurer,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  do  not  hesitate  to  understand  the  promise  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  to  see  in  it  an  abrogation  of  the  ancient  national  distinc- 
tions, without  seeming  to  remember  the  directly  opposite  interpretation  put 
by  some  of  themselves  upon  chap.  Ixi.  5,  G.  Hitzig  and  Knobel,  more  con- 
sistent in  their  exposition,  go  back  to  the  ground  maintained  by  Grotius  and 
the  Rabbins,  namely,  that  of  them  means  of  the  scattered  Jews,  who  should 
not  be  excluded  from  the  honours  of  the  priestly  office.  But  why  should 
mere  dispersion  be  considered  as  disqualifying  Levites  for  the  priesthood  ? 
Or  if  the  meaning  be  that  the  Ijcntical  prerogative  should  be  abolished,  why 
is  the  promise  here  restricted  to  the  exiles  brought  hack  by  the  nations  ?  If 
the  Prophet  meant  to  say,  all  the  other  tribes  shall  share  the  honours  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  he  could  hai'dly  have  expressed  it  more  obscurely  than  Iry 
saying,  "  also  of  them  (the  restored  Jews)  will  he  take  for  priests  and 
Levites." — Of  those  who  adopt  the  natural  construction  which  refers  of 
them  to  Gentile  converts,  some  with  Cocccius  understand  this  as  a  promise 
that  they  shall  all  be  admitted  to  the  spiritual  priesthood  common  to 
believers.  But  Vitringa  objects  that  the  expressions  I  will  take  and  of 
them,  both  imply  selection  and  discrimination.  He  therefore  refers  it  to  the 
Christian  ministry,  to  which  the  Gentiks  have  as  free  access  as  Jews.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  office  might  be  so  described  in  a  strongly  figura- 
tive context,  where  the  functions  of  the  ministry  were  represented  in  the 
same  connecticm  as  sacerdotal  functions.  But  the  only  oflering  here  men- 
ti(ned  is  the  oflering  of  the  Gentile  converts  as  an  oblation  to  Jehovah,  and 
the  priesthood  meant  seems  therefore  to  be  merely  the  ministr}-  of  those  by 
•whom  their  conversion  was  efiected.  The  most  natural  interpretation  there- 
fore seems  to  be  as  follows :  The  mass  of  the  Jewish  people  was  to  be  cast 
off  from  all  connection  with  the  church  ;  but  the  elect  who  should  escape 
were  to  be  sent  among  the  nations  and  to  bring  them  for  an  ottering  to  Jeho- 
vah, as  the  priests  and  Levites  offi'red  the  oblation  at  Jerusalem.  But  this 
agency  was  not  to  be  confined  to  the  Jews  who  were  first  entrusted  with  it; 
not  only  of  them,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles  themselves,  priests  and  Levites 
ghould  bo  cboscD  to  offer  this  oblation,  t.  e.  to  complete  the  vocation  of  the 


Ver.  22,  23.]  ISAIAH  LXVL  479 

Gentiles.  Should  the  context  be  supposed  to  require  a  still  more  general 
meaning,  it  may  be  that  the  sacerdotal  mediation  of  the  ancient  Israel 
between  Jehovah  and  the  other  nations,  which  was  symbolized  by  the 
Lcvitical  and  Aaronic  priesthood,  was  to  cease  ^sith  the  necessity  that 
brought  it  into  being,  and  to  leave  the  divine  presence  as  accessible  to  one 
race  as  another. 

22.  Foi  as  the  ncio  heavens  and  the  new  earth,  which  I  am  maJcing  (or 
ahout  to  make),  are  standing  (or  alout  to  stand)  lefore  rne,  saith  Jehovah,  so 
shall  stand  your  seed  and  your  name.  To  the  reference  of  the  preceding 
verse  to  the  Gentiles  it  is  urged  as  one  objection,  that  the  verse  before  us 
does  not  give  a  reason  for  the  promise  so  explained ;  for  how  could  it  be 
said  that  God  would  put  them  on  a  level  with  the  Jews  because  the  name 
and  succession  of  the  latter  were  to  be  perpetual  ?  But  this  objection  rests 
upon  the  false  assumption,  running  throiigh  the  whole  interpretation  of  this 
book,  that  the  pi'omise  is  addressed  to  Israel  as  a  nation ;  whereas  it  is 
addressed  to  Israel  as  a  church,  from  which  the  natural  descendants  of 
Jacob  for  the  most  part  have  been  cut  oft',  and  the  object  of  this  verse  is  to 
assure  the  church  that  notwithstanding  this  excision  it  should  still  continue 
to  exist,  not  only  as  a  church  but  as  the  church,  the  identical  body  which 
was  clothed  in  the  forms  of  the  old  dispensation,  and  which  still  survives 
when  they  are  worn  out  and  rejected.  The  gi*and  error  incident  to  a  change 
of  dispensations  was  the  very  one  which  has  perverted  and  obscured  the 
meaning  of  these  prophecies,  the  error  of  confounding  the  two  Israels  whom 
Paul  so  carefully  distinguishes,  and  of  supposing  that  the  promises  given  to 
the  church  when  externally  identified  with  one  race  are  continued  to  that 
race  even  after  their  excision  from  the  church.  It  was  to  counteract  this 
very  error  that  the  verse  before  us  was  recorded,  in  which  God's  people, 
comprehending  a  remnant  of  the  natural  Israel  and  a  vast  accession  from  the 
Gentiles,  are  assured  that  God  regards  them  as  his  own  chosen  people,  not  a 
new  one,  but  the  same  that  was  of  old,  and  that  the  very  object  of  the  gi'eat 
revolution  here  and  elsewhere  represented  as  a  new  creation  was  to  secure 
their  perpetuity  and  constant  recognition  as  his  people.  Since  then  he 
creates  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  for  this  very  purpose,  that  purpose 
cannot  be  defeated  while  these  heavens  and  that  earth  endure. — The  Jews 
themselves  understand  this  as  a  promise  that  their  national  pre-eminence  shall 
be  perpetual,  and  several  of  the  modern  German  writers  give  it  the  same 
sense  in  reference  to  the  New  Jerusalem  or  Jewish  state  after  the  Baby- 
lonish exile.  Henderson  goes  with  them  in  making  it  a  promise  to  the  Jews, 
but  stops  short  at  the  turning-point,  and  represents  it  as  ensuring  merely  that 
"they  shall  never  be  any  more  rejected,  but  shall  form  one  fold  with  the 
Gentiles  under  the  one  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  souls,  the  Great  Messiah." 
How  this  assurance  aftbrds  any  ground  or  reason  for  the  previous  declara- 
tion, as  explained  by  Henderson,  "  that  the  performance  of  divine  service 
shall  not  be  restricted  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  shall  be  the  common  privileges 
of  the  whole  people,"  does  not  appear,  and  cannot  well  be  imagined. 

23.  And  it  sludl  he  (or  come  to  pass)  that  from  neiv-moon  to  new-moon 
(or  on  every  new-moon),  and  from  sahhath  to  sabbath  (or  on  every  sabbath), 
shall  come  all  flesh  to  boio  themselves  (or  worship)  before  me,  saith  Jehovah. 
The  form  of  expression  in  the  first  clause  is  so  idiomatic  and  peculiar  that 
it  does  not  admit  of  an  exact  translation.  A  slavish  copy  of  the  original 
would  be,  "from  the  sufiiciency  of  new  moon  in  its  new  moon,  and  from 
the  sufticiency  of  sabbath  in  its  sabbath."  As  to  ""^IP,  see  above,  chap, 
xxviii.  19.     It  often  stands  where  we  should  say  as  often  as  (1  Sam.  xviii. 


480  ISAIAH  LXVl.  [Ver.  24. 

80 ;  1  Kings  xiv.  28).  The  antecedent  of  the  pronoun  seems  to  be  the 
noun  itself.  Gesenius  accordingly  explains  the  whole  to  mean,  as  often  as 
the  new  moon  comes  in  its  new  moon,  i.  e.  its  appointed  time.  (Compare 
Num.  xxviii.  10.)  But  although  the  form  is  so  peculiar,  there  is  no  doubt 
among  modem  writers  as  to  the  essential  meaning,  \'iz.,  from  new  moon  to 
new  moon  or  at  every  new  moon.  The  idea  of  Cocceius  that  every  new 
moon  is  here  represented  as  occurring  in  a  new  moon,  and  every  sabbath 
in  a  sabbath,  because  there  is  one  perpetual  new  moon  and  sabbath,  shews 
a  disposition  to  convert  an  idiom  into  a  myster}'.  The  Septuagint  and  Vul- 
gate read  "  there  shall  be  a  month  from  a  month,  and  a  sabbath  from  a  sab- 
bath," which  appears  to  have  no  meaninjz.  The  other  ancient  versions  are 
equally  obscure. — At  these  stated  periods  of  public  worship  under  the  old 
economy  (those  of  most  frequent  recurrence  being  specifieil)  all  jlrsh  shall 
come  »7»  to  noyship  before  me.  According  to  the  Jewish  doctrine,  this  can 
only  mean  "  must  come  up  to  Jerusalem,"  and  the  Septnagint  actually  has 
the  name.  Against  this  restriction  Henderson  protests,  '*  as  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  that  all  should  be  able  to  repair  thither."  Yet  in  his  note  upon 
the  next  verse  he  observes  that  "  the  scene  is  laid  in  the  environs  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  "  and  he  makes  no  attempt  to  indicate  a  change  of  subject  in  the 
verbs,  or  an  interruption  of  the  regular  construction,  liy  combining  his 
two  comments,  therefore,  M-e  obtain  the  sense,  that  "  from  month  to  month 
and  from  sabbath  to  sabbath  all  llesh  shall  come  to  worship  before  God, 
wherever  they  may  be,  in  all  parts  of  the  earth,  and  shall  go  out  into  the 
environs  of  Jerusalem  and  see.  Sec.  If  it  be  possible  in  any  case  to  reason 
from  the  context,  it  would  seem  plain  here,  that  as  the  scene  in  the  last 
verse  is  laid  in  the  environs  of  Jerusalem  it  must  be  laid  there  in  the  one 
before  it ;  as  the  same  sentence  is  continued  through  both  verses,  and  the 
subject  of  the  verbs  in  tlie  contiguous  clauses  are  confessedly  identical. 
On  our  hypothesis  there  is  no  more  need  of  excluding  Jerusalem  from  one 
verse  than  the  other,  since  tlie  Prophet,  in  accordance  with  his  constant 
practice,  speaks  of  the  emancipated  church  in  language  borrowed  from  her 
state  of  bondage  ;  and  that  this  form  of  expression  is  a  natural  one,  may  be 
inferred  from  the  facility  with  which  it  is  perpetuated  in  the  common  par- 
lance of  the  church  and  of  religion,  the  Jerusalem  or  Zion  of  our  prayers 
and  hymns  being  peri'ectly  identical  with  that  of  the  prophecy  before  us. 
Thus  understood,  the  verse  is  a  prediction  of  the  genenxl  diffusion  of  the 
true  religion,  with  its  stated  observances  and  solemn  forms. 

24.  And  thry  shall  go  forth  and  gaze  upon  the  careafies  of  the  men  who 
revolted  (f)r  apostatized)  from  me,  for  their  worm  shall  not  die  and  their  fire 
shall  not  he  quenched,  and  they  shall  he  ati  horror  to  all  flesh.  The  tirst 
verb  may  be  construed  as  it  in  by  Ewald  indefinitely,  "  they,  i.e.  men," 
without  defining  them  ;  but  in  so  vivid  a  description  it  is  certainly  more 
natural  to  give  the  verbs  a  definite  subject,  and  especially  the  one  that  had 
been  previously  introduced,  vi/.  the  worshippers  assembled  from  all  nations 
to  do  homage  at  Jerusalem.  The  noun  t^i^'}')  occurs  only  here,  and  (with  a 
slight  variation)  in  J)an.  xii.  2.  The  ancient  versions  seem  to  have 
derived  it  from  HN^,  and  to  have  given  it  the  sense  of  sight  or  spectacle. 
The  Septnagint  has  simply  il;  ooaniv ;  but  the  Targum  and  Vulgate  seem  to 
make  the  word  a  compound  from  HNl  and  '?),  as  the  fonucr  has,  "  the  wicked 
shall  be  judged  in  Gehenna  till  the  just  say  of  them,  we  have  seen  enough," 
and  the  latter,  enml  usque  ad  sotietatcm  visionis.  The  modern  lexico- 
graphers refer  it  to  an  Arabic  root  expressive  of  repulsion,  and  ex])l:iin  the 
noun   itself  to  mean  ahhorrcncc  or  disgust. — This  sublime  conclusion  has 


Ver.  24.]  ISAIAH  LXVI.  481 

been  greatly  weakened  and  obscured,  by  the  practice  of  severing  it  from 
the  context  as  a  kind  of  moral  application,  practical  improvement,  or  fare- 
well warning  to  the  reader.  All  this  it  is  incidentally,  and  with  the  more 
complete  effect  because  directly  and  primarily  it  is  an  integral  part  of  the 
"  great  argument "  with  which  the  whole  book  has  been  occupied,  and 
which  the  Prophet  never  loses  sight  of  to  the  end  of  the  last  sentence. 
The  grand  theme  of  these  prophecies,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  relation  of 
God's  people  to  himself  and  to  the  world,  and  in  the  latter  stages  of  its 
history,  to  that  race  with  which  it  was  once  outwardly  identical.  The  great 
catastrophe  with  which  the  vision  closes  is  the  change  of  dispensations, 
comprehending  the  final  abolition  of  the  ceremonial  law,  and  its  concomi- 
tants, the  introduction  of  a  spiritual  worship  and  the  consequent  diffusion 
of  the  Church,  its  vast  enlargement  by  the  introduction  of  all  Gentile  con- 
verts to  complete  equality  of  privilege  and  honour  with  the  believing  Jews, 
and  the  excision  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  from  all  connection  with  the  church 
or  chosen  people,  which  they  once  imagined  to  have  no  existence  indepen- 
dent of  themselves.  The  contrast  between  these  two  bodies,  the  rejected 
Jews,  and  their  believing  brethren  forming  one  great  mass  with  the  believ- 
ing Gentiles,  is  continued  to  the  end,  and  presented  for  the  last  time  in 
these  two  concluding  verses,  where  the  whole  is  condensed  into  a  single 
vivid  spectacle,  of  which  the  central  figure  is  Jerusalem,  and  its  walls  the 
dividing  line  between  the  two  contrasted  objects.  Within  is  the  true  Israel, 
without  the  false.  Within,  a  great  congi-egation,  even  "  all  flesh,"  come 
from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  the  north  and  the  south,  while  the  natural 
children  of  the  kingdom  are  cast  out  (Matt.  viii.  12).  The  end  of  the 
former  is  left  to  be  imagined  or  inferred  trom  other  prophecies,  but  that  of 
the  latter  is  described  or  suggested  in  a  way  more  terrible  than  all 
description.  In  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  under  the  very  brow  of 
Zion  and  Moriah,  where  the  children  were  once  sacrificed  to  Moloch,  and 
where  purifying  fires  were  afterwards  kept  ever  bm-ning,  the  apostate  Israel 
is  finally  exhibited,  no  longer  living  but  committed  to  the  flames  of  Tophet. 
To  render  our  conception  more  intense  the  worm  is  added  to  the  flame,  and 
both  are  represented  as  undying.  That  the  contrast  hitherto  maintained 
may  not  be  forgotten  even  in  this  closing  scene,  the  men  within  the  walls 
may  be  seen  by  the  light  of  those  funereal  fires  coming  forth  and  gazing  on 
the  ghastly  scene,  not  with  delight  as  some  interpreters  pretend,  but  as  the 
text  expressly  says,  with  horror.  The  Hebrew  phrase  here  used  means  to 
look  with  any  strong  emotion,  that  of  pleasure  which  is  commonly  suggested 
by  the  context  being  here  excluded,  not  by  inference  or  implication  merely, 
but  by  positive  assertion.  The  whim  of  Grotius  that  the  verse  describes  the 
unburied  bodies  of  the  enemies  slaughtered  by  the  Maccabees,  and  the  pro- 
tracted conflagration  of  their  dw^elliugs,  needs  as  little  refutation  as  the 
Jewish  dream  that  what  is  here  described  is  the  destruction  of  the  enemies 
of  Israel  hereafter.  In  its  primary  meaning,  it  is  a  prophecy  of  ruin  to 
the  unbelieving  Jews  or  apostate  Israel,  to  whom  the  Hebrew  phrase  here 
used  (^?  D''y:f' Sn)  is  specially  appropriate.  But  as  the  safety  of  the  chosen 
remnant  was  to  be  partaken  by  all  other  true  believers,  so  the  ruin  of  the 
unbelieving  Jew  is  to  be  shared  by  every  other  unbeliever. — Thus  the 
verse  becomes  descriptive  of  the  final  doom  of  the  ungodly,  without  any 
deviation  from  its  proper  sense,  or  any  supposition  of  a  mere  allusion  or 
accommodation  in  the  use  of  the  same  figures  by  our  Lord  himself  in 
reference  to  future  torments.     All  that  is  requisite  to  reconcile  and  even  to 

VOL.  II.  H  h 


482  ISAIAH  LXVI.  [Ver.  24. 

identify  the  two  descriptions  is  the  consideration  that  the  state  of  ruin 
here  described  is  iinal  and  continuous,  however  it  may  be  divided,  in  the 
case  of  individuals,  between  the  present  life  and  that  which  is  to  come. 
Hell  is  of  both  worlds,  so  that  in  the  same  essential  sense  although  in 
different  degrees,  it  may  be  said  both  of  him  who  is  still  livingbut  accursed, 
and  of  him  who  perished  centuries  ago,  that  his  worm  dieth  not  and  his 
fire  is  not  quenched. 


END  OF  VOL.   11. 


Bemy  %vo,  {564  pp.)  price  8«.  6d. 

THE  BOOK  OF  PSALMS, 

TRAIv'SLATED   A^^)    EXPLAINED, 

BY  JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDER,   D.D., 

PHINCETON. 


"We  hail  the  re.publication  of  Dr  Alexander's  work  on  the  Psalms,  a  work  well  known  to  biblical 
students,  and  acknowledged  to  be  of  the  highest  value,  but  which  hitherto  has  been  scarce  and  expen- 
.  sive. 

"It  is  founded  on,  and,  as  the  author  tells  us,  owes  its  origin  to  Hengstenberg's  Commentary— perhaps 
the  most  valuable  contribution  of  modern  times  to  the  exposition  of  the  Psalms  .  .  .  But  while 
Dr  Alexander  professes  his  great  obligation  to  llengstenberg,  drawing,  as  he  says,  more  from  him  than 
from  any  other  source,  it  is  not  to  be  sui)posed  that  he  is  his  slavish  follower.  He  has  exercised  his 
own  independent  judgment  both  in  the  translation  and  the  interpretation,  and  the  result,  as  might 
have  been  expected  from  his  great  learning  and  judiciousness,  is  a  valuble  addition  to  the  exegetical 
literature  of  the  Psalter.  .  .  .  We  have  only  to  add,  that  the  publishers  of  this  work  have  laid 
bliblical  students  under  a  deep  obligation,  and  to  express  a  hope  that  they  will  see  their  way  to  re-issue 
our  author's  work  on  Isaiah,  not  now  easily  had." — Daily  Review. 

"  An  able  exegetical  work  on  the  Psalms,  which  originally  appeared  in  the  United  States  about  fourteen 
years  ago.  The  author,  the'late  Dr  Alexander  of  Princeton,  was  famed  for  his  scholarship,  and  beloved 
for  his  personal  worth  .  .  .  His  commentaries  on  Isaiah,  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Acts,  are  well 
known  and  valued  in  this  country.  The  volume  before  us  is  not  inferior  to  any  of  them  ;  whether 
viewed  as  to  its  spirit,  its  .scholarship,  or  the  views  which  are  enunciated,  it  will  be  found  fully  to  sus- 
tain the  high  reputation  of  its  author. 

"  The  work  has  been  very  neatly  printed,  and  the  price  renders  it  much  more  accessible  than  for- 
merly in  the  three  volume  form.    By  students  and  ministers  it  will  be  welcomed." Glasgow  Daily 

Herald. 

"  When  a  work  so  well  known  to  students  as  '  Alexander  on  the  Psalms'  is  noticed  in  our  pages,  it 
would  be  superfluous  to  dwell  upon  its  very  high  merits.  In  some  respects  we  regard  this  volume  as 
more  valuable  even  than  Hengstenberg  ;  it  throws  a  flood  of  light  upon  many  passages  in  this  impor- 
tant part  of  the  word  of  God.  So  much  is  this  the  case,  that  no  minister  should  enter  upon  the  exposi- 
tion of  the  Psalms  of  David,  without  having  Dr  Alexander's  commentary  beside  him  for  constant 
reference." — R.  P.  Magazine. 

"In  such  a  peculiarly  critical  work  there  is  little  prominence  given  to  the  purely  devotional ;  never- 
theless, the  presence  of  that  element,  if  not  seen,  is  felt,  and  the  volume  goes  far  to  supply  what  has 
hitherto  been  a  great  desideratum  in  our  language—a  really  good  book  on  the  Psalms.     The  work 

should  be  in  the  library  of  every  scholar,  and  on  the  table  of  every  expositor  of  the  Word  of  God we 

might  even  add,  in  the  closet  of  every  Christian  ;  for  the  many  allusions  which  it  contains  to  the  original 
language,  are  not  of  such  a  character  as  to  repel  the  merely  English  reader,  but  may  be  passed  over  by 
him,  while  yet  he  loses  nothing  of  the  result  at  which  the  author  arrives." — Albion. 

"Dr  Alexander  has  given  us  a  readable,  sensible  book,  in  which  one  finds  nothing  to  stagger  or 
amaze  him.  Few  names  stand  higher  among  trans-Atlantic  theologians  than  that  of  the  author  ;  and 
though  this  work  is  too  little  original  to  add  to  his  fame,  yet  we  know  no  one  he  has  produced  more 
fitted  to  be  useful." — Morning  Journal. 

"  We  believe  that  those  who  have  held  Dr  Alexander's  I.saiah  in  estimation,  will  think  highly  also 
of  the  present  work,  and  that  it  will  never  be  consulted  by  them  without  advantage.  It  will  be  found 
to  bring  out  the  meaning  in  each  clause,  and  to  refer  all  the  clauses  distinctly  to  the  theme  or  idea  of 
the  composition,  far  more  ably  than  any  other  English  work." — Xonconformist 


Third  Thousand. 

CONSOLATION. 

By  tok  Kev.  JAMES  W.  ALKXAXDER,  D.D.,  Xew  York. 
CroMm  8vo.  Cloth,  price  '6s.  Gd. 

CONTENTS. 


c.  24 

ruii 
tht 


God's  Syerlasting  Mercy. 

The  Providence  of  God. 

The  Omnipotence  of  God. 

The  Goodness  of  God  a  Refuge 

Hope  rising  to  Assurance. 

Best  in  God. 

Christian  Joy. 

The  Uses  of  Chastisement. 

Holy  Submission  to  Christ's  Will. 


God's  Promise  never  to  Forsake. 
Strength  In  Christ. 
The  Compassion  of  Christ. 
The  Judgments  of  Men. 
A  Review  of  Christian  Martyrdom. 
The  Aged  Believer  Consoled. 
The  Sleep  of  the  Dead. 
All  Consolation  traced  up  to  Its  Divine 
Bouroe. 


"  A  choice  honeycomb.     .Sound  doctrine  is  made  the  basis  of  solid  consolation.      Dr  Alexander 
has  always  written  well,  but  never  better  than  in  these  precious  pages." — Baptitt  Magazine. 

"In  a  style  that  is  clear,  correct,  and  enlivened  by  cliaste  imagery,  he  gives  expression  to  beau- 
tiful, appropriate,  and  sometimes  very  i>rofound  thuiight "The  reader  finds  no  parade 

of  learning  ;  but  the  impression  is  gniilually  produced  as  he  proceeds  that  the  author  is  a  scliolar,  a 
ptulosopher,  a  theologian,  and  a  preaclier  of  no  mean  rank." — The  JUurning  Journal. 


Second  Thousand. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  PRACTICE. 

By  the  Rev.  JAMES  W.  ALEXAXDER,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  price  Ss.  Od. 

CONTENTS. 


The  Inwardness  of  True  Religion. 

New  Disciples  Admonished. 

Love  Casting  out  Fear. 

The  Young  Christian. 

Daily  Service  of  Christ. 

Mirth. 

Believers  are  Witnesses. 

The  Church  a  Temple. 

Strength  In  Christ. 

Youth  Renewed  in  Age. 


Our  Modem  Unbelief. 

Divine  Perfections  in  Harmony. 

Providence  of  God  in  Particulars. 

The  Incarnation. 

The  Character  of  the  Worldling. 

The  Scomer. 

Salvation  Traced  to  God. 

Dying  for  Friends. 

The  Blood  of  Sprinkling. 

The  TOilrsty  Invited. 

"These  sermons  on  Faith  and  Practice  are  varied,  animated,  sound,  pervaded  by  the  same  stream 
of  tlioughtful  eloquence  that  invests  with  so  great  a  charm  all  the  sermons  of  the  Alexanders.  There 
is  a  tone  of  close  thinitinp  and  calm  elo<juence  in  these  sermons,  which  will  render  them  quite  a  treat 
to  more  refined  and  judicious  readers."— i\Vu'»  nfthe  Churches. 

"The  author  of  this  work  is  already  known  as  a  powerful  writer  on  the  problems  of  Christian  life  ; 
one  whose  i>ages  are  rot  merely  hortatory,  but  profoumlly  reasoned,  and  charged  with  a  manly  (eelinc 
that  is  both  strong  and  tender  There  'is  comparatively  little  of  the  solidity,  general  culture,  and 
power  of  these  di.-courses  in  our  ordinary  English  pulpit. "_.A'oHC</n/(<»-nii><. 

"  This  publication  contains  twenty  of  the  best  discourses  to  be  found  in  our  langtiage."_£i'anpe/ica 
Witneit. 

THE   EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

By  TUE  LATE  Rev.  ARCHIBALD  ALEXAXDER,  D.D.,  I'ki.ncet<..\. 

ADAPTED  FOR 

SCHOOLS  AND  BIBLE  CLASSES, 

By   the   Rev.    AXDREW    THOMSOX,    D.D.,    EDiMjiRcn. 
Second  Thousand.     Price  Is. 

"The  work  wa.s  prepnreil.  several  years  ago,  by  the  late  Dr  Archibald  Alexander  of  Princeton,  and 
ha.s  been  very  widely  circulated  in  Amcricii  In  its  present  fnrm  we  reckon  it  to  be  the  best  aij< 
cbc 


cheapest  treatise  on'the  Evidences,  rorpo|>ular  u.so,  which  lias  yet  been  published.  It  consist.s  of  fon 
'\MTt»  I  (Jueslions  which  are  I'reliminarv,  such  as  the  Right  I'se  of  Heason  in  Religion  ;  II  Tli 
Kxteriial  Kvidcnces  ;  HI.  The  Internal  iJvidcuces ;  and  IV.  The  In.-qiiratlon  of  the  Scriptures."- 


M'f<fA7j/  Jieriew. 

"  A  better  summary,  alike  comprehensive  and  simple,  is  not  to  he  found  than  the  nt)ove  from  tl 
pen  of  the  late  Dr  A.  Alexander  of  I'rinceUm.  The  principal  work  of  the  editor  lias  been  to  adapt  th 
Uxik  for  use  in  schools  and  Bilikc  clas-ses ;  and  this  the  eilitor  has  succeeded  in  doing,  without  infrini: 
\nv  uiHin  the  continuity  of  the  argument,  or  the  lucidity  aud  vigour  of  the  author's  style." — ieriru. 
iVarder. 


Date  Due 


Mr  31 'SB 
D  19  "3? 


5     '4( 


HIT  i  d  40 


ii.1, 


f^B2  3't,9 


Ap  1      '40 

irT4 


.Ji- 


4i 


OC.?hCT 


Afib.*^'^'^ 


5?P  *^ 


% 


Je  1  6  '41 


JTT7 


0  1  0  '4!f 


bU 


Mr  1  2 


HiO  2  I  '50 


